Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the eviction suit filed under Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act, 1982 was rightly decreed by the learned trial Court on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The relationship of landlord and tenant, rate of rent, and occupation of the suit premises by the defendant/petitioner are all admitted facts. The plaintiff/respondent specifically pleaded in the plaint that the suit premises is reasonably and in good faith required for their own residence and professional use. Based on such evidence, the trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs' need is genuine, reasonable, and in good faith. These findings are based on evidence and are neither perverse nor illegal and therefore do not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.

12. Upon an overall appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court concluded that the plaintiff/respondent had successfully established their entitlement to a decree of eviction under Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act, 1982. Consequently, the suit was decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the defendant/petitioner. The petitioner was directed to vacate the suit premises described in Schedule-I of the plaint within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiff/respondent was granted liberty to obtain eviction of the petitioner through the process of the Court. It was further ordered that the costs incurred in executing the decree shall be recoverable from the defendant/petitioner. The learned trial Court, however, directed that there shall be no order as to costs.

13. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that Patna High Court C.R. No.68 of 2022(14) dt.20-01-2026 the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the said provision is extremely limited as the present Civil Revision has been preferred under Section 14 (8) of the BBC Act, 1982. The revisional Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and cannot re- appreciate evidence merely because a different view is possible. Interference is permissible only when the findings of the learned trial Court are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffering from jurisdictional error. The legal position in this regard stands conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (supra). In paragraph 43, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and the settled principles of law governing eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity under Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act, 1982. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court regarding the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the respondents for the suit premises, and the non-feasibility of partial eviction are based on cogent evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error.