JUDGMENT
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. Admittedly, defendants were monthly tenants under the plaintiff in respect of one Hall on the ground floor, which was part of Holding No. 118 in Dhanbad Bazar, described in Schedule A’ to the plaint. Description of the suit premises was given in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint.
2. Earlier, plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 105 of 1974 for defendants’ eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as personal necessity for her brother Gajanand Goel, which was dismissed on 10.8.1996 on the ground that there was neither any default in payment of rent, nor plaintiffs requirement was reasonable and bona fide for her own use and occupation. Title Appeal No. 18J of 1976 was filed by her, but subsequently it was withdrawn.
3. Plaintiff filed the present suit (Title (Eviction) Suit No. 50 of 1985) under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, for defendants’ eviction under Section 1 l(l){c) of the Act on the ground that her fourth son, Nawal Kishore Agrawalla, has passed T.V. and Video servicing and engineering training from T.C. Institute, Asansole and was sitting idle and so she required the premises for his business of T.V. T.C., and Radio. It was very suitable and convenient place in the heart of Purana Bazar, where business of T.V. and T.C. etc. for repairing and selling can be conveniently carried on.
4. Defendants contested the suit. According to them, N.K. Agrawalla was already engaged in business. It was also denied that he had done any training of T.V. or Radio. Plaintiff has got various premises lying vacant. Story of personal necessity was concocted one. Her son, N.K. Agrawalla was managing wholesale business of Sugar at Ratanjee Road, Dhanbad.
5. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff got vacant possession of the premises from another tenant on the upper story of Schedule ‘A’ premises, which was let out to one bank employee Sri. Amarnath Chaturvedi, which was vacant for a long time and her son could have easily been accommodated there for starting the alleged business.
6. The trial Court, after remand, decreed the suit on 26.9.2000, holding that plaintiff proved her bona fide need and she required the suit premises in good faith for her fourth son, Nawal Kishore Agrawalla, and partial eviction from the suit premises will not serve the plaintiffs purpose.
7. Earlier on 18.5.1992, the suit was decreed, against which defendants filed Civil Revision No. 228 of 1992 (R) in this Court under Section 14(8) of the said Act, which
was allowed on 7.4.1993 and the suit was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision after recording finding whether plaintiffs need was reasonable and bona fide and partial eviction was possible, on the basis of materials already on record.
8. I find that after remand the trial Court discussed both oral” and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in detail and thereafter came to the aforesaid decision in the suit, both on the question of bona fide requirement as well as partial eviction.
9. Defendants changed their stand from the pleadings where they had alleged plaintiffs son Nawal Kishore Agrawalla to be engaged in whole-sale sugar business and in the evidence it was alleged that he was engaged in the business of transport and Public Distribution System shop.
10. DW 1 firstly stated that various family businesses were being managed by the plaintiffs husband and her three sons and thereafter stated that her fourth son was engaged in the business of transport and Public Distribution System. According to DW 4, he was doing truck/tempo business, but he could not give registration No. of those vehicles. Subsequently, in his cross- examination, in paragraph 8, he also stated that it was possible that the truck/tempo business was being done by second son, Rajendra Agrawalla.
11. Plaintiff on the other, hand, proved that Nawal Kishore Agrawalla had obtained certificate (Exhibit 1/A), after completing training of T.V., Radio and Tape-recorder repairs and he was un-employed.
12. It was true that one room equal in size of the suit premises on the first floor became available to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, but it was established that the said space was not suitable for the business in question. Defendants were also asked whether they were agreeable for shifting their business from the present suit premises to the aforesaid accommodation on its first floor, but they flatly denied, as the same was not suitable for them.
13. Admittedly, the area of the suit shop was 10 X 7-8″ and nature of the business which the plaintiffs son intended to start was sales and Service of T.V., Radio and Tape-recorder etc. and, therefore, on bifurcating it into two parts, plaintiffs requirement could not have been satisfied.
14. In the aforesaid circumstance, I find
no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and decree for eviction. There is no
merit in this Revision application. It is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. Let
the lower Court records be sent down imme
diately.
15. Revision dismissed.