Jharkhand High Court
Shri Ram Awtar Mittal vs (A) Meera Devi on 14 November, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 49 of 2007
Shri Ram Awtar Mittal, son of Late Durga Pd. Mittal, Sreeram Cloth
Centre, Main Road (Maszid Gali), Chas, Resident of Bansidih, P.O. and
P.S. - Chas, District - Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. (a) Meera Devi, wife of Late Prem Chand Kejriwal
(b) Sanjay, son of Late Prem Chand Kejriwal
Both Resident of - Main Road, Chas, P.O. and P.S. - Chas, Bokaro.
(c) Sunita Sanwaria, wife of Mahesh Sanwaria, Resident of -
Ratanjee Road, P.O. - Dhanbad, P.S. - Bankmore, Dhanbad
(d) Anita Agarwal, wife of Brajesh Agarwal, daughter of Late Prem
Chand Kejriwal, Resident of - Jharnapara, P.O. and P.S.- Hirapur,
Dhanbad.
(e) Bandana Goyal, wife of Praveen Goyal and Daughter of Prem
Chand Kejriwal, C/o. Goyal Bastralaya, Near - Hanuman Mandir,
P.O. and P.S. - Daltonganj, Palamau.
[substituted vide order dated 27.07.2018 passed in I.A. No. 3609/2016
after death of sole opposite party namely Shri Prem Chand Kejriwal]
... ... ... Opposite Parties.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate
Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate
For the O. Parties : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, Advocate
22/14.11.2024 Heard the parties.
PRAYER
2. Instant revision application has been preferred by the
defendant/petitioner against the Judgement and Decree dated 29.05.2007,
passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 07/2002 whereby and whereunder, the
Court below has decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal
necessity.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. According to plaint, the defendant/petitioner is the tenant of one shop room in the building situated over C.S. Plot No. 5313 and 5314, pertaining to Khata No. 200, P.S. Chas, District - Bokaro, since the year 1986, on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The size of the shop room is 12' x 30'. The plaintiff required the tenanted premises for his son namely 1 Sanjay Kumar Kejariwal, who is unemployed and a married person, having three children in view of the fact that size of the tenanted shop would meet the substantial requirement for business of his son. There was no possibility of partial eviction.
4. The cause of action arose in December, 2001 when the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises and on subsequent dates, when such requests were repeated. Being aggrieved, the original plaintiff/opposite party [Late Premchand Kejariwal] filed the Title Eviction Suit No. 7/2002 for eviction of defendant/petitioner and claimed to be the owner and landlord of the building situated over C.S. Plot No. 5313 and 5314, pertaining to Khata NO. 200, P.S. Chas, District - Bokaro.
5. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that the suit was not maintainable and the same was filed because the defendant refused to enhance the rent from Rs.500/- to Rs.750/- and later on to Rs.1,000/- per month. According to the defendant, he is a tenant since the year 1977 on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and under duress, he was enhancing the rent to Rs.350/- in November, 1984 and thereafter to Rs. 500/- from 01.04.1989. The specific plea has been taken that the plaintiff did not require the tenanted shop for his own use nor his son was unemployed rather son is managing the father's business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It has further been pleaded that had it been the case that plaintiff needed shop for his son, then he would not have let out the shop in Schedule-A premises to new tenants. The plaintiff/ opposite party had infringed the facilities of tenant to the defendant by disconnecting the electric line of the tenanted shop in March, 1997 and the same had to be restored by the House Rent Controller, Chas in HRC Case No. 6/1997 against the plaintiff and only after order of the House Rent Controller, Chas, the defendant could take a new electric connection in the shop in his own name. It has further been pleaded that in the garb of eviction suit, the plaintiff wanted to evict the defendant for higher rent from other tenants.
6. After framing of issues, the witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. The plaintiff examined five witnesses and 2 defendant examined four witnesses and further exhibited ten documents out of which the Exhibit-B and B/1 are the Agreement on Stamp Paper dated 01.07.1997 and the Exhibit-C is a Tenancy Agreement dated 14.11.2001.
7. After perusing the records, written statements of respective parties and considering the evidence and exhibits, the Trial Court came to a finding that the other shop room was in the backside and not suitable for plaintiff's son's business. The Court below decided the issue no. 4 regarding personal necessity in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The other issues being issue no. 6 regarding partial eviction was also disposed of and issue nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed on contest.
8. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.05.2007, passed by the Munsif, Bokaro in Title Eviction Suit No. 7/2002, the defendant/petitioner has preferred instant revision application.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT/PETITIONER
9. Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Yashvardhan and Mr. Kirtivardhan, argues that the plaintiff had given vacant two shop rooms to third persons by agreement on 01.07.1997 and thereafter had given notice dated 14.07.1997 to the defendant for vacating the suit premises in question on the ground of personal necessity. Learned counsel further argues that Pitar Chand Kejriwal had deposed in the Title Eviction Suit No. 8/2007 which was filed by said Pitar Chand Kejriwal for eviction of the another shop for his property and deposed that Sanjay Kejriwal (son of the plaintiff Prem Chand Kejriwal in Title Eviction Suit No. 07/2008) is his adopted son and he and Prem Chand Kejriwal are brothers and thus the Title Eviction suit no.07/2002 is not maintainable and due to this reason, the defendant/petitioner wanted to bring on record the deposition of Pitar Chand Kejriwal of Title Eviction suit no.08/2007 through I.A. 2736/2014.
10. Learned Sr. Counsel argues that the plaintiff does not require the tenanted shop for his own use nor his son is unemployed rather son is managing the father's business and was earning on his own, which has also been admitted by plaintiff's son.
311. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that the Court below has erred in deciding that the shops let out by the plaintiff to Krishna Kumar Kabra and Ramakant Kabra respectively were in backside and was not suitable for plaintiff's son's business. The Court below did not consider that the plaintiff ought to have offered those two shops to the defendant and the defendant would have shifted to the said shop room on the back side of the tenanted shop and the plaintiff would have got the vacant possession of the suit property. Learned Sr. counsel further argues that plaintiff's need was not bonafide otherwise he would not have let out the vacant shop rooms to a third person rather would have offered the same to the defendant first.
12. Learned Sr. Counsel argues that the Court below has decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity though the plaintiff/opposite party failed to offer one of the two shops which they let out to other person in the same building, both prior to filing of the suit and again extended the lease after filing of the instant suit.
13. To buttress his arguments, learned Sr. counsel places heavy reliance upon the following Judgments:
(i) Prabodh Kumar & Another Vs. Prabodh Kumar & Others reported in 2012 (132) DRJ 562
(ii) Nasima Khanam and others Vs. Binod Kumar Saha Reported in 2023 SCC online JHAR 142
(iii) Kamleshwar Prasad Varjang Solanki9 @ Kamleshwar Prasad Solanki Vs. Dr. D.C. Solanki reported in 1999 SCC Online PAT 709
(iv) Sachida Nand Prasad Vs. Smt. Savitri Sahay reported in 1998 SCC Online PAT 593
(v) Ratanlal Baid v. Sohanlal Saha reported in 1997 SCC Online PAT 598 - Para - 13 -
"13. In my considered view, the learned munsif erred in granting the prayer of ejectment in view of the admission made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to establish that he required such premises. The learned Munsif has not considered the effect of the admission in the right perspective, the plaintiff has not stated in his evidence that the suit premises was more suitable for business than the one which was let out to Industry Officer."
(vi) Bhanu Prasad Vs. Chandra Prasad reported in 1997 SCC Online PAT 474 4
(vii) Kaloo And Others Vs. Gauri Shankar reported in 1981 VOL III SCC 36
(viii) K.A. Antshsm Vs. BhilaI Steel Plant reported in 1979 M.P.L.J.50 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTIES
14. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel representing plaintiff/opposite parties argues that the shops which were given on rent to the third persons, are not suitable for the retail shop business as it is not situated in the front side of the road rather the said shops are situated at the back of the tenanted shop which is fit for godown only and this point has already been discussed by the court below in the internal page 10 and n11 in the 9th paragraph of the judgement under impugned and given the finding that those shops are not fit for retail business and the witnesses of the defendant/petitioner also admitted in their deposition that the aforesaid shops are situated at the back of the tenanted shop. Learned counsel further argues that the Court has also held that land lord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purposes so the contention of the defendant/petitioner is not liable to be entertained.
15. Learned counsel further argues that contention of the petitioner/defendant that Pitar Chand Kejriwal had deposed that Sanjay Kumar Kejriwal was the adopted son and wanted to bring the deposition of the said Pitar Chand Kejriwal given in Title Eviction suit no.08/2007 by filing I.A. No. 2736/2014 under provision of Order 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is not maintainable in view of the fact that the present civil revision application is filed under section 14(8) of the Bihar Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Act 1982 and provision of order 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for the additional evidence in the appeal and the plaintiff has already replied to the I.A. No. 2736/2014 on 16.06.2014 and in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 stated that said Interlocutory application is not maintainable and further the certified copy of the deposition of Pitar Chand Kejriwal was obtained on 30.06.2009 but the I.A. No. 2736/2014 had been filed on 12.05.2014 i.e. near about after 5 5 years, which is not permissible under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further in paragraph no. 8, the Plaintiff/opposite party has stated that said Pitar Chand Kejriwal had already deposed in Title Eviction suit no. 07/2002 (present Title Eviction suit in question as P.W.3 wrongly typed as P.W.5) and he had almost deposed similar facts as deposed in Title Eviction no.08/2007 and in paragraph no.14 of his deposition he has deposed that he and Prem Chand Kejriwal were the brothers and had one son i.e. Sanjay Kejriwal. Learned counsel further argues that in paragraph no. 15 of the reply to I.A. No. 2736/14, it has been stated that neither Prem Chand Kejriwal nor Pitar Chand Kejriwal ever deposed either in Title Eviction suit no.07/2002 or in Title Eviction suit no.08/2007 that Sanjay Kejriwal was residing only either with Prem Chand Kejriwal or Pitar Chand Kejriwal and deposition of Pitar Chand Kejriwal had already been considered by the court below in Title Eviction suit no.07/2002. Learned counsel submits that there is no any new fact or subsequent event which should be brought on record by way of additional evidence.
16. Learned counsel further argues that the tenanted shop which was to be vacated by the defendant in the present Title (Eviction) Suit No. 07/2002 is M/s Shree Ram Sari Bhandar and not the Prem Vastralaya and in paragraph no. 9 of the written statement, defendant has stated name of the shop Prem Vastralaya, is a ground of defendant that Sanjay Kejriwal is engaged/involved in the business of said shop with his father so there is no any necessity of eviction on the ground of personal necessity. Learned counsel further argues that in the reply filed by the opposite party on 06.07.2023 to I.A.no.5729/2023, the opposite party has stated in paragraph no. 11 that son of the plaintiff is still unemployed and there is no any shop in his name and when the tenanted shop in question will be vacated by the defendant he will start his business and further in paragraph no.15 of the reply dated 28.07.2023 filed by opposite party, it has been stated that the defendant has three different outlets of Arvind Mill in Bokaro Mall in Bokaro Steel City having business in the name of GRSM FAB TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED since 13.07.2017 in which the petitioner and his son are the Directors and the document in support of 6 same have also annexed as Annexure B series which starts from page 17 of the said reply.
17. Learned counsel further argues that during course of arguments, the petitioner/defendant has filed one judgement of Hon'ble Patna High Court passed in the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal & Others Vs. Bhushan Ram reported in 1989 PLJR Page 1188. Refereeing paragraph no. 40 of the said judgement, learned counsel submits that if the plaintiff intends to bring any subsequent event to the notice of Revisional Court, the same should be allowed. Learned counsel further argues that the aforesaid ratio/judgement is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as in paragraph no. 40 itself it has been stated that subsequent event should be brought by filing an application for amendment of plaint but the petitioner did not file any application for amendment of the written statement for bringing on record pleading first and directly filed Interlocutory application for additional evidence which is not permissible and this lacuna cannot be filled up now at this stage since for any evidence, the pleadings is necessary by way of amendment and this has also been stated in paragraph no. 38 of the said judgement. Thus, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no any subsequent event which should be brought on record as Pitar Chand Kejriwal has already deposed similar facts in present Title (eviction)Suit 7/2002 as P.W.5.
18. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel representing opposite party/plaintiff has relied upon the following judgements;
(i) D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundararajan reported in (2019) 9 SCC 282 - paragraph no.12
(ii) Hukum Chandra (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Nemi Chand Jain and others reported in (2019) 13 SCC 363
- paragraph 13 and 17
(iii) Akhileshwar Kumar and Others Vs. Mustaqim and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 462 - paragraph 3, 4 and 5 FINDINGS OF THE COURT
19. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the instant application for the following facts and reasons:
7(I) The Courts below has already observed that the shops which were given on rent to the third persons, are not suitable for the retail shop business as it is not situated in the front side of the road rather the said shops are situated at the back of the tenanted shop which is fit for godown. The land lord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purposes and as such, the contention of the defendant/petitioner is not acceptable to this Court.
(II) The present civil revision application is filed under section 14(8) of the Bihar Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Act 1982 and provision of order 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for the additional evidence in the appeal and there is no any new fact or subsequent event which should be brought on record by way of additional evidence. (III) The tenanted shop which was to be vacated by the defendant in the present Title (Eviction) Suit No. 07/2002 is M/s Shree Ram Sari Bhandar and not the Prem Vastralaya whereas in paragraph no. 9 of the written statement, the defendant has stated name of the shop Prem Vastralaya, is a ground of defendant that Sanjay Kejriwal is engaged/involved in the business of said shop with his father so there is no any necessity of eviction on the ground of personal necessity.
(IV) It has also come to the fact that son of the plaintiff is still unemployed and there is no any shop in his name and when the tenanted shop in question will be vacated by the defendant he will start his business whereas the defendant has three different outlets of Arvind Mill in Bokaro Mall in Bokaro Steel City having business in the name of GRSM FAB TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED since 13.07.2017 in which the petitioner and his son are the Directors which is evident from Annexure B series.
20. The Judgments relied upon by the petitioner/defendant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(i) The ratio of the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1989 PLJR Page 1188 is not applicable in the case of 8 the petitioner as in paragraph no. 40 itself it has been stated that subsequent event should be brought by filing an application for amendment of plaint but the petitioner herein did not file any application for amendment of the written statement for bringing on record pleading first and directly filed Interlocutory application for additional evidence which is not permissible and this lacuna cannot be filled up now at this stage since for any evidence, the pleadings is necessary by way of amendment.
(ii) The Judgment rendered in 2012 (132) DRJ 562 is not applicable as it is with respect to the mere wish or desire of the land lord to have the tenanted shop for extension of his business or for setting up a business for his son.
(iii) The Judgment rendered in 2023 SCC online JHAR 142 is also not applicable in the present case as in paragraph no.3, it is mentioned that the case has been filed on the ground of defaulter and for personal necessity.
(iv) The Judgment rendered in 1999 SCC Online PAT 709 is not the case under section 14(8) of Bihar Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Act and it is the case of defaulter and personal necessity and as such, the said judgement is not relevant.
(v) The Judgment rendered in the case of Sachida Nand Prasad Vs. Smt. Savitri Sahay reported in 1998 SCC Online PAT 593 is not applicable in the present case as the facts of the case are different and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
(vi) The Judgment rendered in 1981 VOL III SCC 36 is not arising out of section 14(8) of BBC Act and the facts of the said case are different from the present case and further the Court has rightly entertained the order 41 rule 27 application since it is in the appeal so this judgement is against the petitioner.
(vii) The Judgment rendered in 1979 M.P.L.J.50 is not under section 14(8) of BBC Act.
21. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as judicial pronouncements, I find no illegality or any infirmity in 9 the order passed by the Court below. The Courts below has discussed in details and I find no error or discrepancies in the findings of the Court below. No ground is made out for any interference. This revision is accordingly dismissed and the Judgments and orders passed by the Court below is hereby upheld.
22. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 10