Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Civil Revision application 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 29.03.2023, decree whereof sealed and signed on 13.04.2023, passed in Eviction Suit no. 12 of 2012, passed by Sri Kumar Ritesh, Learned Munsif-I, Patna Sadar, whereby and where under the learned trial Court decreed the suit without cost directing the petitioner to vacate the suit premises within 60 days from the date of judgment, failing which the respondent will be at liberty to evict the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises by the process of the Court at the cost of the defendant-petitioner.

7.v. While deciding Issue Nos. VI, VII and VIII the trial Court has passed the decree on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff as the defendant's defence having struck of for failing to the arrears of rent as directed under Section 15 of the BBC Act, he was not allowed to adduce evidence as a result of money order sent against monthly rental which is part of the record could not be marked as exhibits but the trial Court wrongly held that the order was passed on consideration of evidence adduced by the parties.

7.viii. It is submitted that no evidence whatsoever was adduced regarding the dimensions of the two rooms which constitute the subject matter of the suit. The Hon'ble Patna High Court has consistently held in several decisions that it is a mandatory duty cast upon the Court, while passing a decree of eviction on the ground of personal necessity, to ascertain the dimensions of the suit premises and thereafter to determine whether the requirement of the landlord can be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part of the premises. Further, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bimal Kishore Gupta v. Smt. Beena Devi & Ors., C.R. No. 2255 of 2000 and Md. Jahangir v. Smt. Kirti Devi, Civil Revision No. 659 of Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026 2001. Further, reliance is placed on the judgments reported in 2001 (2) PLJR 837; 2004 (4) PLJR 843 and 2002 (3) PLJR 656, wherein it has been categorically held that non- consideration of the proviso to Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act vitiates the decree of eviction.

8.ii. It is settled law that any one co-owner can maintain an eviction suit with the consent of other co-sharers, as held in 2004 (1) PLJR 462, Bhola Prasad Sah v. Ram Dhani Prasad (para 9). He submits that the defence of the petitioner was struck off under Section 15 (1) of the BBC Act, 1982, and no cogent evidence was led by him. The petitioner has remained in occupation without paying rent since 2012. He neither pleaded nor proved that partial eviction would substantially satisfy the respondent's need. The onus to establish partial eviction lies on the tenant, which the petitioner has failed to discharge, as held in 2010 (3) PLJR 483, Chandradeep Kumar v. Gatrumal Kanodia (para 25) and 2012 (3) PLJR 649, Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026 Hanuman Prasad Gupta v. Shankar Chaudhary (paras 6-7).