Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.