Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be called 'the Code'), the appellant original unsuccessful plaintiff, has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, refusing an order for eviction against the respondent-defendant tenant on the ground that 'the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation', which is a non-residential premises, in terms of the provisions of the Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter called as 'the BBC Act'), while dismissing the appeal and confirming the view of the trial Court in dismissing the suit.

2. The learned counsels for the parties are heard and the entire record has been examined and evaluated.

3. The eviction suit, bearing Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1995, came to be dismissed by the trial Court upon examination and appreciation of the evidence on record and holding that the original plaintiff landlord has failed to establish reasonable and "bona fide, requirement of the demise premises for the commencement of his own business. The learned first appellate Judge has, also, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and the relevant provisions of law, found no substance in the appeal and confirmed and affirmed the view and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the trial Court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act. Hence, this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code.

5. It is well established that in a first appeal, the scope is wider, as the appellate Court can reappreciate and re-examine the facts and circumstance and the evidence on record. Such is not the proposition applicable to the Second appeal against the appellate decrees, in terms of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code. The trial Court, upon examination of the entire testimony and documentary evidence on record, reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case for reasonable and bona fide requirement of the business premises. This finding is a pure and simple finding of fact. Not only that it has been re-examined and reconsidered in the first appeal by the learned first appellate Judge in terms of the provisions of Section 96 of the Code, but the learned first appellate Judge has, also, reached to a very unambiguous conclusion that the materials on record and the evidence led by the parties could not be said to be sufficient to establish the material ingredients provided under Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act, like reasonable and in good faith requirement for personal necessity of the original plaintiff-landlord. It is, therefore, the verdict of the trial Court, dismissing the suit for eviction, filed by the landlord, confirmed and affirmed by the first appellate Court, which is directly under the challenge in this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code.

9. After having taken into consideration the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act and the entire testimony and documentary evidence on record coupled with the text and tenor and content and colour of the impugned judgment of the Courts below, this Court has not the slightest hesitation in finding that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are quite justified, weighty and trustworthy requiring no interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 100 of the Code. Consequently, this Second appeal shall stand dismissed with costs.