Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
13. About the third point, I have already stated that Advocate Commissioner's report had not been accepted by the Court below but reliance was put on that report, although written objection was filed fro the side of the defendant and that objection had not been considered by the learned Court below and as such reliance on such report is definitively wrong and illegal.
14. About the fourth point i.e. whether opening up a passage by demolishing the suit house comes within the purview of necessity as contemplated under Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act is required to be decided.
Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act reads as follows:
Whether the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord.
15. Mr. Debi Prasad, by relying on the judgment of this Court as reported in 1969 BUR 164 Abdul Ghaffar v. Swal Ram Beenapani Sarkar v. Inderdeo Singh submitted that for the purpose of passage no eviction suit for personal necessity can be maintainable. By referring to the wordings of Section 11(1)(c), it is the contention that the suit building can be taken possession of the eviction on the ground of personal necessity, but for the purpose of demolition of the same, there is no scope to pray for eviction on the ground of personal necessity.