Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is the tenant's civil revision filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBC Act' or 'the said Act' for short) against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2002 passed by the Munsif, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 25/92, whereby the learned Munsif has decreed the landlord's suit for eviction sought on the ground of their personal necessity.

2. The plaintiffs case was, that they are the owners of the house standing over Holding No. 6, Thakurbari Shop Area, Sakchi, town Jamsedpur, consisting of four shop rooms on the ground floor. The defendant was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs in one shop room as a monthly tenant, on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- plus electric charges. The defendant was carrying on business of Electronics and other allied goods. Two shop rooms are in occupation of other tenants, namely, Himmat Singh and Jadunath Pathak and the rest one shop room is in occupation of the plaintiff No. 2 who is running business of TV and other Electronics goods. The plaintiffs averred that they belong to a trading family and earn their livelihood by carrying on their business. The plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of the plaintiff Nos. 2-5 and they are living jointly in a portion of first floor of the building. The plaintiff Nos. 3 and 5 have not been able to engage themselves in business due to want of accommodation. The wife of the plaintiff No. 4 has taken a shop on rent at Sakchi Market and is running business there. The plaintiff No. 3 Umesh Chaudhary required the said premises for his business of courier services and courier parcels and he has got fund for the said business. The plaintiff No. 5 Bimlesh Kumar Choudhary since married in March, 1995 is also unemployed and he also needs the suit premises for running his business of Electrical goods. The plaintiffs, therefore, required the suit premises for the plaintiffs No. 3 and 5, reasonably and in good faith. The suit premise is located in the centre of Sakchi Market and is suitable for the said business of the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 5. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises to which they had agreed and assured to vacate it by 30.9.1991, but subsequently refused to vacate. Hence the suit.

5. The defendant felt aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, has preferred this revision under the provisions of Section 14(8) of the said BBC Act, 1982.

6. Mr. L.K. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tried to assail the impugned judgment and decree mainly on two grounds. Mr. Lal, firstly, contended that the plaintiffs are not the landlord within the meaning of Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act and they are not entitled to get a decree for eviction on the ground mentioned in Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act. According to him, the suit holding is a leasehold property of TISCO standing in the name of Bhola Ram Chaudhary. The said Bhola Ram Chaudhary has not executed any document in favour of Nathulal Chaudhary and that the said position has been admitted by PW 1, Kamlesh Chaudhary in his deposition. In view of the said admission the plaintiffs are not the actual owners, having right against the whole world to occupy the premises. They are, thus, not the landlords within the ambit of Section 11(1)(c) and at their instance the instant suit under the said provision is not maintainable. According to Mr. Lal, the learned trial Court failed to take into consideration the said legal position and erroneously decreed the suit holding the plaintiffs as the landlord for the purposes of Section 11(1) (c) of the said Act. The Court below has also committed errors in law in applying the principles of estoppel against the defendant which is not applicable in the instant case as the defendant had no knowledge regarding the actual ownership of the suit building at the inception, but he subsequently came to know that the suit premises does not belong to the plaintiffs. Thus the rule of estoppel has no application against the defendant in this case. Mr. Lal relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 1113, M.M. Quasim v. Manoharlal Sharma and Ors. Mr. Lal submitted that the Court below has further erred in not taking into consideration the subsequent development brought by way of amendment in the written statement, also supported by the evidence, that the UCO Bank which was admittedly a tenant on the first floor of the suit building vacated the suit premises and the same became available to the plaintiffs for the purpose of doing the intended business. According to Mr. Lal, the trial Court failed to take into consideration that in that event the requirement of the plaintiffs for the suit premises, is not reasonable and in good faith and they are not entitled to the relief as prayed for.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials and evidences on record. I find merits in the submissions of Mr. Prasad. Section 2(f) of the BBC Act defines 'landlord' thus :

"Landlord" includes the persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of, for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant".