Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Civil Revision application no: 166 of 2024 has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "BBC Act") against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2024 passed by learned Shri Upender Shah, civil Judge (Sr. Division VIII), Patna in Eviction Suit No. 66 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the Learned trial Court allowed the eviction suit filed by the Plaintiffs/respondents directing the defendants/petitioner to vacate the suit premise mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint within sixty days from the date of order, failing which the respondents shall be at liberty to obtain eviction of the petitioner through the process of the Court and the costs incurred over the same shall be recoverable from the defendant.

7.ii. Learned counsel for the petitioner categorically denied the existence of any valid registered lease for six years and specifically pleaded that the tenancy was purely on a month-to-month basis. He further contended that the eviction suit was frivolous, misconceived and filed only to evict him without satisfying the mandatory statutory requirements under Section 11(c) of the BBC Act, 1982. He also asserted that the respondents had failed to establish any bona fide or subsisting personal necessity as required under law. He further submitted that the claim of personal necessity put forth by the respondents was inconsistent, shifting and not supported by pleadings or evidence. Initially, the respondents claimed that Respondent No. 2 was residing in a rented house at Kankarbagh and had been asked by his landlord to vacate the premises within three months. However, during the pendency of the suit and without any amendment of the plaint, the respondents started projecting a new case by asserting that the daughter of Respondent No. 2, who is a doctor working at IGIMS, intended to open a clinic in the suit premises. He further contended that such a plea, not having been pleaded in the plaint, could not have been legally considered by the learned trial court.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the eviction suit under Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act, 1982 was rightly decreed by the learned trial Court on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The relationship of landlord and tenant, rate of rent, and occupation of the suit premises by the defendant are all admitted facts. The plaintiffs/respondents specifically pleaded in the plaint that the suit premises is reasonably and in good faith required for their own residence and professional use, as plaintiff no. 2/respondent no.2 is a practicing advocate at the Patna High Court and has no residential house of his own in Patna. It was further pleaded, even by amendment prior to framing of issues, that partial eviction would not satisfy the bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs.

12. Upon an overall appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, the Learned Trial Court concluded that the respondents had successfully established their entitlement to a decree of eviction under Section 11(1) (c) of the BBC Act, 1982. Consequently, the suit was decreed on contest in favour of the respondents and against the defendant. The petitioner was directed to vacate the suit premises described in Schedule-I of the plaint within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment, failing which the respondent was granted liberty to obtain eviction of the petitioner through the process of the Court. It was further ordered that the costs incurred in executing the decree shall be recoverable from the defendant. The Learned Trial Court, however, directed that there shall be no order as to costs.