Loading...

High Court Jharkhand High Court

Ramkishori Singh vs Ram Brij Ray on 22 August, 2001

Jharkhand High Court
Ramkishori Singh vs Ram Brij Ray on 22 August, 2001
Author: G Sharma
Bench: G Sharma


JUDGMENT

Gurusharan Sharma, J.

1. Title (Eviction. Suit No. 7 of 1995 was filed for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It was decreed ex-pone defendant preferred Civil Revision No. 246 of 1996(R) in this Court under Section 14(8) of the Act, which was disposed of on 17.2.1997 with direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within two months, after recording findings in respect of personal necessity and partial eviction.

2. On remand, defendant appeared and filed affidavit under Section 14(4) of the Act which was rejected on 31.7.1997 on the ground that pursuant to remand order the suit was not to begin with fresh trial and no such direction to entertain prayer for granting leave to contest the suit was given in remand order.

3. Against the said order, defendant preferred C.R. No. 338 of 1997(R). wherein notice in the admission matter was issued and further proceedings in the suit was stayed by order dated 22.10.1997, but before that the suit was already disposed of on 23.9.1997 and was decreed.

4. On 25.11.1997, Civil Revision No. 338 of 1997(R) was permitted to be withdrawn, as after passing of eviction decree in the suit, the same has become infructuous. However, a liberty was given to raise grievance against ex-parte decree passed in the suit on the grounds taken in the said Revision application.

5. On 26.11.1997, defendant filed present Revision application against the aforesaid eviction decree, under Section 14(8) of the Act.

6. Since earlier disposal of eviction suit was ex-parte, this Court after setting aside the same remanded the suit with specific direction to the trial Court to record findings on personal necessity and partial eviction. It was observed that notice of the suit was issued and validly served on the defendant and even then he did not appear and suit proceeded ex-parte. So this Court did not disturb the order fixing the suit for ex-parte hearing and remanded the matter to record the aforesaid findings on the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff. Unless the plaintiff brought on record evidence to support his pleadings, even an ex-parte decree cannot be passed.

7. In the present case, unless trial Court recalled the order for ex-parte hearing at the instance of defendant, there was no occasion for entertaining affidavit under Section 14(4) of the Act for grant of leave to contest the suit. There was no such direction in the remand order dated 17.2.1997.

8. In terms of said remand order plaintiff was given opportunity to adduce further evidence and he examined himself as PW 2 in the suit. Earlier plaintiffs son for whose business the suit premises was required was examined as PW 1. Plaintiff has got three sons. His elder son was living with him in native village. Two of them were unemployed and wanted to start readymade garments business in the suit shop, which as situated in the City Centre Market. Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City and was most suitable for the purpose. Plaintiff has got no other accommodation for the said purpose.

9. Relationship of landlord and tenant was not in dispute. Kirayanama was proved and marked as Ext. 1 and rent receipts were marked Exts. 2 series. It was proved that plaintiffs requirement to establish his two unemployed sons in business was reasonable and bona fide.

10. Further In view of plaintiffs assertion that his requirement cannot be satisfied, unless entire suit shop (10″ x 20″) was vacated, it was found that partial eviction of defendant would not satisfy his requirement. The shop room was too small to be partitioned in two party for the proposed business of plaintiffs sons.

11. In this circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/ order. The Revision application is, accordingly dismissed, but without costs. Let the lower Court records be sent down.

Revision dismissed.