Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, while controverting the submissions on behalf of the appellant has been categorical in his contention that there has been cogent evidence led by the tenant-defendant on the point of partial eviction and it is not the case of no evidence, as has been tried to be made out on behalf of the appellant. It has been canvassed that the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the BBC Act) is a benevolent piece of legislation which mandates the court to consider Patna High Court SA No.257 of 2006 dt.16-09-2016 5 the fact as to whether the partial eviction of the tenant would reasonably and substantially satisfy the need of the plaintiff before granting the prayer for decree on the ground of personal necessity. Elaborating the submissions, learned counsel has placed the findings of both the courts below in order to demonstrate that the learned courts below have scrutinized the evidence and materials on record and thereafter have recorded the finding on the issue of partial eviction. It has also been propounded that the finding by both the courts below on the issue of partial eviction is clearly a possible view of the matter and therefore, it requires no interference in the second appellate jurisdiction.

8. After considering the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is absolutely limpid that the gravamen of the controversy demonstrably pertains to the issue of partial eviction alone. The finding that the plaintiff has the bonafide reasonable requirement of the suit premises stands concluded between the parties. In view of the proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act, the legislative mandate is explicit that a judicial exploration is required culminating in a finding regarding the court's satisfaction on the point as to whether the entire premises must be vacated to fulfill the reasonable requirement of the landlord or the part eviction of the tenant will satisfy such requirement. While Patna High Court SA No.257 of 2006 dt.16-09-2016 6 considering a similar provision in the Jammu & Kashmir House and Shops Rent Control Act, a three judge Bench in the case of REHMAN JEO WANGNOO V. RAM CHAND & ORS AIR 1978 SC 413 has ruled that the absence of specific pleading under the said proviso does not stand in the way of the obligation of the court to act in compliance of the mandate of the statute.

12. Here, it cannot be lost sight of that the BBC Act is a Patna High Court SA No.257 of 2006 dt.16-09-2016 8 benevolent piece of legislation and the proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act has been manifestly included for mitigating the hardship of a tenant. From the findings of both the courts below, it is transparent that the courts have made comparative appraisal of the needs of the landlord-plaintiff and tenant-defendant and thereafter, have concluded that the landlord need can be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from part of the suit premises. The decision in the case of M/s Bata India Ltd. (supra) has been rendered in different setting of facts where there was no pleading or evidence on behalf of the defendant on the issue of partial eviction whereas in the present case the defendant in his deposition has clearly stated that he has been keeping half of the suit premises vacant for the occupation by the plaintiff. Similar is the position in the decision of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta (supra), wherein, also the defendant-tenant has failed to raise the plea of partial eviction either in the written statement or in evidence. Reliance placed on behalf of the appellant on the decision in the case of Karamchand Thappar and Other (supra) is also misplaced, as in the said case the defendant themselves were not carrying any business in the suit premises and there was neither any pleading nor any evidence with regard to partial eviction.