Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement asserting that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (here-in-after to be referred to as the BBC Act for short).

It is averred that since the plaintiff has taken additional ground of default hence, the suit was not maintainable under Section 14 of the BBC Act. It is pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties neither the defendant ever paid rent @Rs.2300/- per month to the plaintiff. The defendant has asserted that he is in possession of the suit property since 1981, pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 30.12.1981 entered between Renu Sen and the defendant for which a consideration amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid by the defendant. That unfortunately the sale deed could not be executed however, the defendant continued to be in possession of the suit property and he has acquired the title over the suit property by adverse possession. The defendant, subsequently, amended the written statement with a plea that plaintiff's husband was introduced to the defendant through a common friend namely, Suresh Nandan Prasad Srivastava in the month of July, 2003. That the husband of the plaintiff agreed to get the sale deed executed by the heirs of Renu Sen on payment of commission amount of Rs.50,000/- by the defendant. The defendant believed the assertion made by the plaintiff's husband and paid Rs.15,000/- (by cheque of Rs.13,800/- and Rs.1,200/- in cash), by way of first installment and subsequently paid Rs.23,000/- by cheque to the plaintiff towards part payment of the brokerage commission. The defendant pleaded and alleged that the said cheques were now being utilized by the plaintiff to make out a case that the aforesaid amount was paid towards the rent payable by the defendant as tenant. It is also pleaded that plaintiff's description of the property does not tally with the property which is in possession of the defendant. That the defendant is possessing of the northern portion of Plot No.170 while the plaintiff has stated that she has purchased the southern portion of Plot No.170.

On the point of personal necessity there is a finding that the plaintiff's husband wants to practice as an advocate

- 10 -

and he does not have any house at Ranchi and the fact that a person cannot be forced to reside in a tenanted premises when he has his own house at Ranchi. It is well settled that one persons' necessity cannot be equated or compared with the necessity of another person and it should not be founded merely on desire The defendant has not brought any evidence on record to show that the plaintiff has any other house at Ranchi. As per explanation of Section 11(1) (c) of the BBC Act, the aspect of partial eviction can be considered only when the defendant is agreeable on such partial eviction. It is noticed that the defendant has not pleaded about partial eviction rather he has tried to assert that he has acquired the title by adverse possession. On the other hand the plaintiff's case is that the suit property is required for residence and office purpose for the use of her husband. There is no scope of two persons having joint accommodation in the same house. The appellate court has recorded its satisfaction and rightly held that the issue of partial eviction looses significance when there is a unimpeachable finding that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent.