Patna High Court
Ravi Atal & Anr vs Smt.Ganga Devi on 24 January, 2012
Author: V.Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.242 of 2009
==================================================
Ravi Atal & Anr
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Smt.Ganga Devi
.... .... Respondent
==================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. AMBUJ NAYAN CHAUBEY
Mr. Siddharth Harsh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
Mr. Amresh Kumar Singh
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-01-2012 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH) V.Nath,J. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
2. This civil revision application has been filed by the defendant (tenant)-petitioners under the provision of Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings(Lease, Rent & Eviction)Control Act, 1982( hereinafter referred to as B.B.C.Act) against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2008 passed in Eviction Suit No. 67/97 by Munsif III, Patna whereby the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff opposite party on the ground of personal necessity has been decreed. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the rank held by them in the suit.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that the 2/18 plaintiff, as the owner of the suit premises, has let out the same to the defendant as tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 600/- besides charges for electricity bill etc. The plaintiff has, at the outset, stated that her affairs are managed by her husband Mungeshwar Prasad Singh and her son Amresh Kumar Singh on her behalf. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has been residing with her family members in ancestral old house which is also occupied by a large number of co-sharers and the said house is in tattered condition and has also been subject matter of partition suit with the co-sharers and her co-sharers are violent in nature and have been disturbing her peace. The plaintiff's son Amresh Kumar Singh is a practising advocate in Patna High Court and the suit flat is required for establishing a decent chamber for him including the place for his clients and library etc. and the ancestral house at Lohanipur is not suitable for the said purpose due to frequent troubles and disputes created by other co-sharers as well as due to its locality. It is also the case of the plaintiff that her son is attached to the office of a senior advocate having chamber near the Boring Road and the suit flat being nearer to the office of the senior advocate is more suitable. Moreover, the suit flat is also nearer to the High Court in comparison to Lohanipur house and the road to High Court from Lohanipur is always congested due to heavy traffic and road jam. Further the plaintiff has also averred that her two grand daughters are students of 3/18 Mount Carmel School, Patna which is far away from the Lohanipur house and nearer to the suit premises. The plaintiff has asserted that the practice of his son is suffering badly on account of unsuitability of the ancestral house for the said purpose; and her grant daughters also face regular difficulty in reaching their school from Lohanipur house due to traffic jam and congestion and as such she bonafidely requires the suit premises for residing in peaceful atmosphere as well as for the welfare of her son and grand daughters who are dependent upon her. The suit premises, thus, has been claimed to be most suitable place for the residence and for establishing the office of the son of the plaintiff. It has also been stated that the need of the plaintiff cannot be satisfied by partial eviction and she requires the entire suit premises. Although the allegation of damage to the suit premises by the defendant and default in payment of rent have also been made but the suit has been confined for eviction of the defendants on the ground of the plaintiff's personal bona fide requirement and necessity.
4. From the order sheet, it appears that the leave to contest the suit was granted to the defendant no.1 Ravi Atal alone and no leave was granted to the defendant no.2, Rita Atal but the defendant Rita Atal has signed the written statement, and verification has also been done by her alongwith the defendant no.1, Ravi Atal.
5. In the written statement, it has been stated that the defendant 4/18 no.2 Rita Atal is not necessary party and has been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation even when she is not a tenant in the suit premises. It is the case of the defendants, inter alia, that the plaintiff is dependent on her husband Mungeshwar Prasad Singh and she is only a name lender for her husband who has actually acquired the property in which the suit premises is situated in his wife's name; that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable because under the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of the B.B.C.Act only an owner can file the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and on many occasions Mungeshwar Prasad Singh and his son Amresh Kumar Singh received rent from the defendants even through account payee cheque in their own names and issued rent receipts under their signature which facts show that they are the landlords and the plaintiff has got no right over the suit premises; that the story of personal necessity has been concocted in order to secure eviction of defendant no.1 for the purpose of earning higher rent; that earlier also threat for forcible eviction was given and due to unwarranted behaviour of the landlord proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. had been initiated and at present also one proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is pending; that on the petition of the defendant, the House Controller under the B.B.C.Act after making enquiry issued direction to the owner landlord to carry out repairs and white washing of the suit premises; that the plaintiff with her family 5/18 members is comfortably residing in the big double storied pucca ancestral house at Lohanipur which has also open space in front and is attached to Kadamkuan Mohall which is centre of legal professionals and as such very suitable for the son of the plaintiff to establish his chamber and carry on his legal practice; that the bus of Mount Carmel School can conveniently reach to the old ancestral house of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the defendants that the building of the plaintiff consists of 6 flats including the suit flat on each of its floor and many flats fell vacant and let out on higher rents but the defendant had never been offered the chance to shift in the flats falling vacant; that the flats situated on the ground floor and the first floor are of the same size and similar accommodation and had fallen vacant during the pendency of the suit and were let out to the other tenants; that the plaintiff has no bona fide requirement of the suit premises for personal occupation. On the aforesaid main grounds the defendants have prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
6. The trial court, on the basis of the rival pleadings, framed issues which included the issues regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants, and also the issue relating to the existence of bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff of the suit premises as well as the partial eviction. After hearing the parties and considering their 6/18 evidence, the trial court has decreed the suit and passed the order for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. The trial court has recorded the following main findings:
(i)The property including the suit premises belongs to the plaintiff, and defendants are residing in the same as tenant and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants.
(ii) The plaintiff has been able to prove that only two rooms are there in the Lohanipur house and that is not sufficient for her family as well as for establishing the office/chamber for her son to carry on his legal practice efficiently.
(iii) The plaintiff has got personal necessity of the suit premises for her son so that he may open the office in the suit premises and practice properly.
(iv) The partial eviction cannot be ordered in view of the nature of the requirement of the plaintiff as well as in view of available accommodation in the suit premises with one Kitchen.
7. Mr. K.N.Chaubey, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has contended that the proceeding of the suit has not been conducted in accordance with the special procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the B.B.C.Act rather, in fact, a general procedure prescribed for the trial of ordinary suit has been followed at 7/18 various stages of the suit which has rendered the order of eviction bad in law and without jurisdiction. It has been urged that the court under the B.B.C.Act is a creation of the statute and therefore it must follow the particular procedure provided in the said statute. He has next submitted that the plaintiff is not the real owner of the suit premises which really belongs to her husband who had purchased it out of his own money and as such the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of personal necessity was not maintainable. It has further been contended that the personal necessity, as pleaded in the plaint, is not bona fide rather the whole story has been concocted with oblique motive, and the mala fide is writ large from the facts itself which reveal that a series of disputes and litigation had been fought and some are still pending in between the plaintiff and defendant establishing acrimonious relationship between them. Putting emphasis on the fact that many flats in the building in which the suit premises is situated had fallen vacant and let out to the tenants before the filing of the suit but after joining of the son of the plaintiff in legal practice and also during the pendency of the eviction suit, the learned counsel has contended that this itself is enough to establish the oblique motive of the plaintiff. He has further argued that the house of the plaintiff at Lohanipur Mohalla is a big house and is suitable in all respect for her residence as well as for establishing the office/chamber of her son for his practice as 8/18 a lawyer. It has also been contended that the court should take cognizance of subsequent event and the necessity must be shown to persist till the eviction order attains finality and in view of the fact that the grand daughters of the plaintiff now must have crossed their schooling age and the plaintiff and her husband must have grown older, the personal necessity for the purpose of residence has vanished and further the fact that the son of the plaintiff has carried on his practice as a lawyer by establishing his office in Lohanipur house itself for so many years, it would now not be proper for an established lawyer to shift his place of practice and thus the personal necessity in this respect also becomes extinct. The learned senior counsel has also urged that the present eviction suit has been filed only by way of retaliation but the learned court below has ignored all these aspects while passing the impugned judgment and order for eviction which is not sustainable in law.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff has refuted the aforesaid submissions and contended that the impugned judgment requires no interference as the same is based on elaborate consideration of evidence and is in accordance with law. It has been contended that a tenant, who has himself adhered to the procedure under Section 14 of B.B.C.Act by contesting the suit after obtaining the leave as required under the special procedure, cannot 9/18 thereafter complain that the elaborate and general procedure has been followed by the learned court below instead of summary procedure. The defendant, having not raised any objection at the initial stage, it has been argued, cannot be permitted to assail the final order on that count as no prejudice can be caused to the defendant by following a general procedure instead of shorter and summary procedure by the Court. It has been further contended that the plaintiff, in view of the evidence on record, is the owner and also the landlord. The finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be interfered with particularly when the husband of the plaintiff has accepted the plaintiff to be the title holder of the property. So far as the contention regarding the flats in the building falling vacant before the suit and after filing of the suit, it has been contended that the tenant-defendant cannot question the choice of the plaintiff, who, at the inception, having made the choice out of the various flats, cannot be forced to make her content with any of the other flat which became subsequently vacant. It has been urged that the plaintiff is the best judge of his/her requirement and the tenant cannot dictate the terms upon her. The learned counsel has exphasized that the basic facts constituting the bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff are the need for a better residential accommodation in good locality compared to old dilapidated house in old congested locality of 10/18 Lohanipur having so many occupants and co-sharers and also for establishing a decent office/chamber for her son for his efficient practice as a lawyer. It has been submitted that these requirements of the plaintiff still exist and the subsequent events as pointed out on behalf of the defendant cannot blur these requirements.
9. Several decisions have been cited both on behalf of the defendant-petitioners as well as the plaintiff-opposite party and the same shall be appropriately referred to henceforth.
10. Section 14 of the B.B.C.Act has been introduced for the purpose of providing a special remedy to the landlord seeking eviction of his/her tenant on the specified grounds therein, and it prescribes a special procedure to be followed for the disposal of the eviction suit falling under this section. The court is, thereby, enjoined to follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including recording of evidence. In the present case, the eviction suit has been filed on the ground of personal necessity alone under Section 11(1)(c) of the B.B.C.Act and therefore the provisions of Section 14 are attracted. The defendant no. 1, by filing a petition for leave to contest the suit under Section 14(4) of the Act, has also acted under that special procedure. The submission on behalf of the defendant is that the court below has followed the general procedure instead of special procedure and thus the judgment and order are vitiated on that score. Although the 11/18 prejudice caused to the defendant, by adoption of the general procedure by the court in hearing the eviction suit, could not be pointed out and established but the learned senior counsel has maintained that the statutory requirement of following the special procedure cannot be waived by the Court which is itself the creation of the same statute and therefore the resultant order would be a nullity.
11. It is not the case of the defendant that at any point of time, during the course of hearing of the suit, objection was raised by him regarding the general procedure which was followed during the course of hearing. In my opinion, the defendant, who participated in the hearing of the suit under general procedure and took a chance of the judgment going in his favour cannot be permitted to assail the order subsequently at the stage of revision on the ground that the special procedure has not been followed by the court during the course of hearing of the suit. This aspect has come up for consideration before a bench of this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. Kamla Singh (1992(2)PLJR 111), wherein it has been held that the non- observance of the special procedure is not an illegality which would render the judgment and order void ab initio. Their Lordships have further held that such illegality must be pointed out at the initial stage and, if not so done, cannot be taken as a ground for assailing the judgment. It has also been held that a tenant cannot be prejudiced by 12/18 non-observance of the special procedure rather he is benefited by it. Thus I do not find any force in the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the non-observance of the special procedure has vitiated the impugned judgment and order.
12. The plaintiff has stated that she requires the suit premises for her residence with family and also for establishing a decent chamber/office for her son who is a practicing advocate in Patna High Court. The plaintiff has stated that she is residing in a portion of the ancestral house at Lohanipur Mohalla and the said house is also occupied by the co-sharers and is an old tattered house. The evidence of the parties in this regard have been elaborately considered by the court below which has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has bona fide and reasonable requirement for establishing the office/chamber of her lawyer's son for a proper and efficient practice. From the evidence on record it has been proved that the plaintiff's son is a practising advocate in Patna High Court and therefore, the need for an office/chamber for him by the plaintiff cannot be said to be unreasonable. Further it has also been established from the evidence that the house at Lohanipur Mohalla is the ancestral house of the plaintiff and her family, where only two rooms are in occupation of the plaintiff and other portions of the house are in occupation of the co- sharers who are having litigation with the plaintiff and her family. 13/18 Further the evidence on record also establish that the suit premises is nearer to Patna High Court and is placed in a better locality then the old house at Lohanipur Mohalla. After considering all these facts emerging from the evidence on record, the court below has come to the conclusion that the necessity of the suit premises, for establishing the official chamber of her lawyer's son as claimed by the plaintiff, is bona fide and reasonable. It has not been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that any evidence has been ignored. It is not the case of the petitioners that the findings recorded by the court below are perverse and the submissions on behalf of the petitioners converge to the point that the conclusions drawn by the Court on the basis of evidence are not correct. It is true that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 14(8) of the B.B.C.Act is wider than the jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. but simultaneously it cannot be equated with the appellate jurisdiction which include the jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence. On its own language of Section 14(8), the High Court is only to satisfy itself that the order of eviction is in accordance with law. The apex court has also in the case of Chandrika Prasad Vs. Umesh Kumar Verma (2002(1)SCC 531), while considering the scope of proviso to Section 14(8) of the B.B.C.Act, has observed as follows:
"...Though the revisional jurisdiction exercisable under the said proviso is not so limited as under 14/18
Section 115 C.P.C. nor so wide as that of an appellate court and the High Court cannot enter into appreciation or reappreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were the Court of facts................................. ....The High Court, however, is obliged to test the order of rent controller on the touchstone of "
whether it is according to law" and for that limited purpose may enter into reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available ..."
13. In view of the principle laid down by the apex court, the conclusions drawn by the court below, after appreciating the evidence on record, do not appear to be unreasonable or arbitrary.
14. It is also the case of the petitioners, as averred in the written statement, that many other flats in the building belonging to the plaintiff had fallen vacant before the suit or during the pendency of the suit. The defendants have elaborated this averment by describing the 15/18 flats which had fallen vacant and the plaintiff had inducted tenants in those flats and the witnesses of the defendants have also supported the case of the defendants in this regard. On this basis it has been submitted on behalf of the defendant that the need of the plaintiff is not bona fide as she could have well occupied those flats or any one of them, which could have satisfied her need as pleaded, or could have made an offer to the defendants to occupy the same. The learned senior counsel has placed depositions of the witnesses in this regard to buttress his submission. It has also been pointed out that the plaintiff and her husband must have become older and it could not be convenient for them to climb up to the upper floor where the suit premises is situated in the building. However from Explanation II to Section 11(1)(c) of the B.B.C.Act which has been, for the first time, introduced in the B.B.C. Act in the year 1982, it appears that the legislature was not oblivious of such a situation and the choice of the premises has been expressly left to the landlord out of two or more premises let out by him. The tenant has been precluded from questioning the preference in this regard by the landlord. This Explanation II Section 11(1)(c) of the B.B.C.Act has also come up for consideration before the apex court in the case of Savitri Sahay Vs. Sachitanand Prasad (AIR 2003 SC 156) where it has been observed as follows:
16/18
".... Explanation II Section 11(1)(c) permitted the landlord to ignore other premises and to prefer a particular premise. The appellant having made a preference cannot be forced to occupy other premises which may become available. Further the appellant was not required to keep those premises vacant because her eviction suit was pending, nor was there any duty cast on the appellant, under any provision of law to offer those other premises to the respondent..."
15. In view of this principle as laid down by the apex court, the case of the personal necessity as pleaded by the plaintiff cannot be held to be mala fide or actuated by oblique motive. The plaintiff was under
no legal obligation to keep vacant her other flats, which might have become available during the pendency of the suit, and not to let out the same to other tenants nor she was under legal compulsion to occupy the same or to offer the same to the defendants. The plaintiff's choice for the suit premises in preference to other tenanted flats, at the inception, cannot be questioned by the defendants. There is, thus, no force in the submission on behalf of the petitioners that by the subsequent events of flats becoming available to the plaintiff, her personal necessity has vanished. The learned court below has also considered the issue of 17/18 partial eviction. Considering the nature of requirement as pleaded by the plaintiff for establishing office, chamber etc. for her lawyer's son, the finding recorded by the learned court below is in accordance with law and does not require interference. The learned court below has also considered this aspect and has come to the right conclusion.
16. It has been next submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises which really belongs to her husband who is the real owner. It has been submitted during the course of argument that the plaintiff is simply a house wife and has no source of income of her own and it was in fact her husband, who was in service, had provided the consideration money for the purchase of the property in which the suit premises is situated. However, it is not disputed that the property is in the name of the plaintiff and her husband or her son have not come before the court to deny the fact rather the ownership of the plaintiff has been accepted by them which is against their own interest. The defendants have not set up their own title over the suit premises and they have admitted that they are only the tenants and have been paying rent to the husband of the plaintiff or her son. It has been specifically pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that her husband and her son managed her affairs on her behalf. In view of these facts the learned court below has rightly concluded that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant in 18/18 between the plaintiff and the defendants.
17. The submission with regard to the pendency of litigation between the parties in the nature of Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding or the proceeding before the Rent Controller under the B.B.C.Act for providing amenities etc. are not momentous enough, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to vitiate the personal necessity of the plaintiff. It is the submission on behalf of the plaintiff that, after her request for vacating the suit premises for her own occupation, the defendants started creating trouble and dragged her to litigation only to create evidence in order to preempt her claim of eviction. The defendants have also accepted that a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was started and dropped and another is still pending due to threat of forcible eviction. Thus the persisting dispute relating to eviction between the parties is not ruled out and the same appears to have culminated in the filing of this Eviction Suit.
18. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, it is held that the impugned judgment and order for eviction are in accordance with law. The civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V.Nath, J) Patna High Court, Patna.
Dated 24 of January, 2012.
N.A.F.R./ Nitesh