Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The parties led evidence-oral as well as documentary in support of their respective case. The Court below by the impugned judgment and order has decreed the suit and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within period of 60 days of the order.

5. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below has decided the case on a wrong assumption of fact that the judgment and decree in Partition Suit No. 83 of 1977 has attained finality by reason of the dismissal of First Appeal Nos. 168 of 1983 and 216 of 1983. The fact of the matter is that applications for restoration, vide M.J.C. Nos. 437/90 and 451/90, are pending. He submitted that there are good chances of the appeals being restored. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the Partition Suit cannot be said to be finals Secondly, the plaintiff's requirement of the suit premises, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said reasonable and bona fide, therefore, the Court below committed error in decreeing the suit. Counsel also assailed the finding on the point of partial eviction.

21. As regards the question of partial eviction, which was the last limb of the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner, from the impugned judgment it does not appear that the petitioner had agreed to partial eviction. The proviso appended to Section 11(1)(c) containing the clause regarding partial eviction runs as follows:

Provided that where the Court thinks that reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building and allowing the tenant to continue occupation of the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation the Court shall pass such orders accordingly....
In view of the judicial pronouncements on the point, it is the duty of the Court to consider the question of partial eviction. But in view of the express language of the statute, part eviction can be allowed only "if the tenant agrees to such occupation". From the judgment it does not appear that the petitioner had expressed any such readiness and willingness to occupy portion of the house as tenant in the event the Court accepts the plaintiff's case as to reasonable and bona fide requirement to be true and, further, is of the opinion that the said requirement can be substantially satisfied by part eviction. However, the Court has gone into that aspect of the matter and held that part eviction is not possible. It appears from the evidence on record that suit premises consists of five interconnected rooms, situate in a row. If a person enters into one room he can go into the adjacent room. In such a situation it is obvious that it would not be proper to compel the two families to live together. Where the tenancy is for residential purpose and the landlord also wants to reside in the same house, the Court should consider the desirability and feasibility of the two families living together in the same house. I do not think, in the facts of the case, that part eviction is a workable proposition. The submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner in this regard is also rejected.