Patna High Court
Karamchand Thappar And Brother (Cs) ... vs Laxmi Narayan Mishra And Ors. on 12 May, 2006
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh
JUDGMENT Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
Page 1267
1. That the present revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act is against the judgment and decree passed in Title Eviction Suit No 68 of 1995 whereby defendants-petitioners have been asked to vacate the suit premises.
2 The plaintiffs-opposite parties' case was that the said suit premises was purchased by their father late Ramdhani Mishra who had acquired the same through a registered sale deed dated 05.12.1988. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the tenancy was in respect of a portion of the holding on the entire groundfloor consisting of hall, room, kitchen, bath room, verandah at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- to the defendants-petitioners. The tenancy being attorned, the tenants-petitioners stopped paying rent. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs wanted the groundfloor for starting their business to set up a shop for wholesale and retail sale of motor parts and in the rest, a restaurant which all they would construct on remodelling the groundfloor. Request for vacating having not been agreed to, the suit for eviction on ground of personal necessity was instituted. The defendants filed their written statement. They denied having any knowledge of sale of the property. They denied that their earlier landlord Shyam Nandan Prasad ever informed them about the said sale. Their case is that Shyam Nandan Prasad refused to accept rent and, as such, they instituted a proceeding under Section 19. It was admitted that the plaintiffs' father had demanded the rent but they refused to recognize him as the landlord. It was asserted that their posssession was being wrongly disturned and that the plaintiffs did not require the premises reasonably and in good faith for their personal use. The trial Court found suit maintainable and accepted the plea and order eviction from the groundfloor.
3 Shri J. S. Arora, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-petitioners has submitted that a reference to Exhibit-1, the sale deed dated 05.12.1988 by which the father of the plaintiffs purchased the property showed that the defendants were tenants of the entire building consisting of two floors, as such, the suit for eviction from groundfloor alone could not lie as the plaintiffs had to first terminate the entire tenancy and then seek eviction. Not having sought termination of the entire tenancy, the suit must fail.
Page 1268 4 I have examined the sale deed dated 05.12.1988. It does show that the defendnts-petitioners were tenants and the plaintiffs' father purchased the property with the tenant. This does not mean that tenancy continued all along for the entire premises. D W 1, the only witness, as examined by the defendants, has admitted that the first floor was now occupied by the plaintiffs. That being the situation, the tenancy to the extent of which was sought for personal necessity was the tenancy which was sought for eviction on the ground of personal necessity was the entire groundfloor. It is, therefore, as submitted by the opposite parties, that eviction was sought only from the groundfloor. In other words, the eviction was sought of the tenant from the entire portion in his occupatiion at the time of institution of the suit as that was the requirement of the landlord. In my opinion, the tenancy may have been for the entire premises originally. In course of time, it appears the tenancy of the first floor was surrendered because it is admitted that plaintiffs are occupying the same. What remained of the tenancy was the groundfloor and the entire was being sought to be taken in eviction. As such, even if what has been submitted by Mr Arora for the petitioners is to be accepted, the entire tenancy was being terminated and eviction consequently sought. Thus, the first ground does not warrant interference in the judgment. Secondly, it has been submitted that the plaintiffs failed to establish personal necessity. It is submitted that the plaintiffs should have pleaded the exact nature of business they intended to do, they should have specified the exact area of the premises they require. The Court was then required to judge the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the said area. This not having been done, the judgment stands vitiated. Here again, I am afraid, the submissions are not acceptable. The plaintiffs have clearly specified that the entire groundfloor of the premises is required by them. They have clearly stated that after getting it vacated, they intend to remodel the same and start wholesale, retail business in motor parts and restaurant. In my view, it is not open to any Court to dictate as to what area is sufficient for the business of plaintiffs, whether two tables, four tables or ten tables in a restaurant would be sufficient. It is for the landlord to decide the same so long as his need is reasonable and bonafide. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence to show that the claim of plaintiffs is exagerrated. Shri Arora has referred to several decisions of this Court and the Apex Court for the proposition that the Court has to find the extent of premises available for eviction and the extent of personal necessity. There is no quarrel with the said proposition but here on the facts, the plaintiffs' case is clear that the premises consisted of certain room and they require the entire for the two business ventures as mentioned. The requirement is neither unreasonable nor unreal. Accordingly, even this submission cannot be accepted.
5 Lastly, it was submitted that the question of partial eviction has not been considered in the proper perspective. Shri Arora submits that it was for the plaintiffs first to establish the exact area they would require and then for the Court to give a finding as to the area available and to what extent eviction should be ordered. The Court not having given such categorical findings, the judgment stands vitiated. Before proceeding any further, I must note that it is the evidence of the defendants themselves that they are not carrying on any business in the said premises at present. The premises is kept locked and there is only one employee that is the night guard. Obviously, the requirement of tenant, at present, is nothing more than holding on to a tenancy which had come their way several decades back cheaply at the cost of landlords beneficial enjoyment. Coming to the question of requirement of Page 1269 landlords, at the cost of repetition, the plaint clearly states the accommodation available and its requirement by the plaintiffs in entirety. There being neither any pleading nor any evidence that the requirement was exagerrated or that the requirement would be met by partial eviction, the trial Court has consciously considered the same and held that the requirement of the landlords would not be met except by way of complete vacation of the groundfloor. In my opinion, law does not enjoin upon the Court to go into any mathematical exactitude in such matters. Reference may be made to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. Smt Pushpa Devi and Anr. reported in 2005(3) P L J R 719 which was rightly pressed into service by the counsel for the landlords-opposite parties. In the peculiar facts of this case where the defendants are not carrying on any business but merely keeping the premises locked depriving the landlords would be unjust.
6 There being no other ground raised, this civil revision application is dismissed.