IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No.554 of 2003
Shyam Lal Kedia ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bimal Kumar Agarwal ... ... ... ... Opp. Party
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sahani
For the Opp. Party: M/s. Rajiv Ranjan, K.P. Deo
------
Reserved on: 14.7.2009 Pronounced on: 26th August, 2009
M. Y. Eqbal, J. This revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar
Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed
against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2003 passed
by Subordinate Judge-III, Dumka in Title Eviction Suit No.11 of
1999 whereby he has decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant
from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity.
2. The plaintiff-Opp. Party’s case as given in the plaint is that
the double storied building comprised within Holding No.161 and
161/119 (old/new) Ward No.3/10 originally belonged to Sita Devi
Saraf, wife of Banarasi Lal Saraf. The plaintiff alleged to have
purchased half portion of the ground floor towards western side
along with its upper portion of the entire building by a registered
sale deed dated 24.4.1997. The other portion towards eastern side
was purchased by one Rajesh Kumar Tekriwal on the same day
from Sita Devi Saraf. The plaintiff said to have got his name
mutated in the Zamindari Sirista of Dumka Anchal and also in the
Dumka Municipality and paid rent and municipal taxes. The
plaintiff’s further case is that the defendant , namely Shyam Lal
Kedia, was a month-to-month tenant under original vendor Sita
Devi Saraf occupying the ground floor of the building on monthly
rent of Rs.325/-. After purchase, the plaintiff asked the defendant-
petitioner to pay half of the rent, but he did not do so even after
information given to him by the previous landlord Sita Devi Saraf.
The plaintiff’s case is that he requires the suit premises reasonably
and in good faith for his own use and occupation and for his family
members. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the purpose of purchase
of the suit premises is for shifting his office and godown as the
plaintiff is registered dealer of oxygen cylinder.
2 Civil Revision No.554 of 2003
3. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing written
statement. The relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied
and disputed by the defendant and he further pleaded that he was
inducted as tenant of the entire ground floor of the building having
six rooms and the entire upper portion of the building which is in
occupation of Shyamal Tekriwal. The defendant’s further case is
that the description of the suit premises given in the plaint is vague
and self contradictory and also in conflict with the description
given in the sale deed. The defendant further denied and disputed
the personal necessity alleged by the plaintiff as the same is neither
reasonable nor bona fide.
4. The trial Court framed the following seven issues for
consideration: –
1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?
3. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit?
4. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant
between the plaintiff and defendant?
5. Is the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith
require the suit property for his personal
necessity?
6. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree of eviction
against the defendant?
7. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is
entitled?
5. So far issue No.4 is concerned, the trial Court recorded a
finding that the description of the suit premises given in Schedule
‘A’ of the plaint is neither vague nor misleading, contradictory or in
conflict with the sale deed.
6. On the issue of personal necessity (issue No.5), the trial
Court came to a finding that the plaintiff requires the suit premises
reasonably and in good faith for his use and occupation and for
occupation of his family members. Consequently, the suit was
decreed.
7. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, assailed the impugned judgment as being contrary to the
facts and evidence on record and is perverse in law. The learned
counsel submitted that the Court below has not even taken into
3 Civil Revision No.554 of 2003
consideration that even in eviction suit plaintiff is required to prove
his prima facie title and to establish the relationship between
landlord and tenant. Learned counsel then submitted that the
Court below failed to take into consideration that the description
given in the sale deed does not tally with the description of the suit
premises given in the plaint and because of this vagueness, the suit
was liable to be dismissed.
8. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evidently clear
that the trial court has take into consideration the description given
in the sale deed and the description of the suit premises given in
the plaint. It was categorically noticed that in the plaint there is
specific mention about the description of the property by giving its
boundary as mentioned in the sale deed which identify the suit
premises. The area with boundary, plot no., holding no., etc have
also been specifically mentioned in it. The description of the suit
property has also been fully supported by the witnesses examined
by the plaintiff. On the issue of personal necessity, the Court below
has also considered the evidence adduced by the parties and
recorded the finding with regard to personal necessity of the
plaintiff. However, the finding with regard to partial eviction was
not given in the impugned judgment.
9. The Civil Revision was taken up for hearing on 6.1.2004 and
a Bench of this Court after taking notice of the fact that there was
no finding on the issue of partial eviction, directed the Court below
to hear the parties and to accept further evidence and record a
finding on the question of personal necessity. In compliance of the
aforesaid order, the Court below further recorded finding on the
issue of partial eviction after giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties. On the issue of partial eviction, the Court below recalled
and examined the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and the
defendant. The Court below found that the suit premises consist of
only one kitchen and two small bathrooms in the northern side and
therefore by dividing the suit premises and giving it to the
defendant as suggested by him, the requirement of the plaintiff will
not be fulfilled as because after that the suit premises will be
useless for any purpose. The Court further found that the suit
premises is only 16 ft width in front and 70 ft long. If it is
partitioned, only 8 ft width in the front will be left. Hence, the very
4 Civil Revision No.554 of 2003
object of the eviction of the defendant for starting business by the
plaintiff will be frustrated.
10. Having regard to the facts and evidence discussed above, I
do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment. In my
opinion, the impugned judgment passed by the Court below is in
accordance with law.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this civil
revision which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
Manoj/ A.F.R.