Patna High Court
Kailash Nath Dhut And Ors. vs Anil Kumar Yadav on 16 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)BLJR1324
JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J.
1. This civil revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control, Act 1982 (in short, BBC Act) by the defendants arises from an order of eviction passed by the Munsif, Patna City against them in Title Eviction Suit No. 63/89.
2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the afore-mentioned suit for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity in terms of Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act. The suit was tried according to the special procedures laid down in Section 14 of the said Act. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises having area of 52" x 76" situate at Jhauganj in Patna City was allotted to his share in private partition in the family on 25.12.1969. His name was accordingly mutated in the records of the Patna Municipal Corporation. The petitioners who were tenants in the premises from before started paying rent to him. After the partition the plaintiff started living along with his family members in a rented premises owned by Sudama Devi at Hanuman Nagar. The rented accommodation is not only unsuitable but the landlady was putting pressure on him to vacate the premises. Hence this suit.
The petitioners filed affidavit seeking leave to contest and, after the same was granted, written statement stating, inter alia, that the story of private partition was false. The family was possessed of several houses in Patna and, therefore, the so-called need of the plaintiff was not bona fide. The petitioners also denied that the plaintiff was living in a rented house.
3. The Court below has accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit directing the petitioners to vacate the premises within two months of the order.
4. Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the premises having width of 7'6" and length of 52' cannot be suitable for residential purpose. He submitted that the plaintiff-opposite party admitted in his evidence that he would reconstruct the premises to make the same suitable for residential purpose. But in view of the Bench decision of this Court in Ratan Lal Rai v. Sheo Kumar Kamalia 1991 (1) PLJR 216, no order of eviction on the ground of personal necessity can be passed in the plaintiff wants to reconstruct of remodel the house. In that case this Court held that Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act does not require the landlord to use the building after decrees of eviction on the ground of necessity passed, in the same condition as it was before nor it requires the premises to be used for the same purpose for which it was used before by the tenant. The only requirement is that there should be a bona fide need for occupation. In coming to the said conclusion the Court noticed the two decisions of the Apex Court in Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta v. Inradaman Amratlal Sheth AIR 1961 SC 1676 and K.A. Anthappi v. C. Ahmad . In that connection the Bench also noticed the previous decisions of this Court in Haji Adbul Ghaffar v. Sawal Ram AIR 1969 BLJR 164, Binapani Sarkar v. Indradeo Singh and Abdul Aziz Khan v. Abdul Hafiz Khan, AIR 1991 (2) PLJR 752, in which it has been held that eviction bought for the purpose of reconstructing or remodelling the building or for opening passage is not covered by Section 11(1)(c) of the Act.
5. It may be mentioned here that in the case of Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta v. Inradaman Amratlal Sheth (supra) the Supreme Court while considering the relevant provision of Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 had held that mere fact that the landlord intends to make alteration in the house either on account of his sweet will or on account of his necessity in view of the condition of the house does not affect the question of his requiring the house bona fide and reasonable for his occupation, when he has proved his need for occupying the house. In K.A. Anthappi's case (supra) the Supreme Court held that the claim of the landlord that he needs the building bona fide for his personal occupation cannot be negatived on the ground that the building requires repair and alterations before the landlord occupied the same.
6. In the present case, the plaintiff has examined witnesses to prove that there had been private partition in the family; that he has been living in the rented house and that his landlady is forcing him to vacate that house PW 2 Gauri Shanker Prasad has stated that the plaintiff has got on house of his own at Patna and is living at rented house at Hanuman Nagar (Kankarbagh). PW 3 Om Prakash Gupta has said the same thing in his evidence. PW 5 Misthrilal Yadav who is none else than the plaintiff's father has stated about the partition in the family and allotment of the suit premises to the plaintiff's share. PW 7 Anil Kumar Yadav stated that the plaintiff is residing in a house which belongs to his mother and the same is required for their personal use. The plaintiff has thus proved that there was family partition in which the premises was allotted to his share, that he is presently living in a rented house and is under pressure to vacate the same. I am satisfied in these premises that the plaintiff's need is bona fide and reasonable.
7. It is, therefore, not a case where the plaintiff wants that the premises be vacated by the defendants so that he may make a new construction and let out the same. Once the requirement of the premises is found to be bona fide, his claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he intends to make certain repairs or alterations there in. It is significant to mention that in the plaint no such case has been pleaded. It was only in course of his cross-examination that the plaintiff admitted that if any remodelling would be required to make the premises suitable for residential purpose, he would get the same done. The present case, in my opinion, therefore is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta's case (supra).
8. Counsel for the petitioners tried to convince the Court that the premises having width of 7/6 cannot be suitable for residential purpose. Firstly from the evidence of the plaintiff appears that the width of the premises is 7' 6" only upto four to five feet towards north, thereafter the premises has width of 10'. Secondly, even if it be assumed that the premises having width of 7'6" or 10' and length of 52' is not suitable for residential purpose, for a person who has no other accommodation of his own and living in a rented house, there is hardly any choice. I fail to understand how the plaintiff can be non-suited merely on the ground that the size or shape is not suitable for residential purpose when he has no other house of his own. The accommodation may not be quite suitable but since he has no other house, he has no choice but to accept the same and live in it by making alterations or remodelling it to make it suitable to residential purpose as far as possible.
9. Counsel for the petitioners next argued the point of partial eviction. The Court below has gone into that question and negatived the defendant's contention. Having regard to the fact that the defendants have been doing business, to permit them to occupy portion of it would not only leave a very small portion which may not be sufficient for residential purpose but also may cause avoidable inconveniences. It would also not be proper to allow the premises of the aforesaid size to be used for residential as well as commercial purpose by the plaintiff and the defendants, respectively. It would be unreasonable from the plaintiff's point of view to do so. The Court below therefore did not commit any error in not allowing the defendants to occupy part of the premises.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error of law in the impugned order. The civil revision is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.