Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Civil Revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'BBC Act') against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Munsif-I, Munger in Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2011 (CIS No. 114 of 2013) by which eviction of the defendant/petitioner has been sought from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity alone. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they required the suit premises for their furniture manufacturing shop which is the most suitable place in the Patna High Court C.R. No.108 of 2019(8) dt.08-10-2024 market of Jamalpur by demolishing the old house and by constructing a new house as per their requirement on the suit premises which cannot be fulfilled by partial eviction.

9. Mr. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has not properly considered the evidence of the parties and therefore the findings are vitiated. It has been contended that the court below has adopted wrong procedure and applied wrong legal test in deciding the issue of personal necessity. Learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the court below on the issue of personal necessity and other incidental issues are perverse in law. Mere assertion on the part of the landlord that he requires the premises for his own personal necessity is not decisive. It is for the court to determine the truth of the assertion as to whether it is bonafide. The word "required" signifies that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough but there should be an element of need and burden is on the plaintiffs to Patna High Court C.R. No.108 of 2019(8) dt.08-10-2024 prove that he genuinely requires the premises for personal necessity. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Sachida Nand Prasad Vs. Smt. Savitri Sahay reported in (1998) 3 PLJR 541. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned trial court has not properly considered the proviso to Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 of the BBC Act with regard to partial eviction. Learned trial court has to consider the aforesaid provision and order for eviction for the entire premises could be made only if a decree for partial eviction in the matter provided could not substantially satisfy the landlord's requirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. At the time of occupation of the said land, the land was barren and the father of the defendant constructed a house over the same consisting of three rooms and was residing therein. It is also submitted that the father of defendant in the year 1996 had taken loan from the bank over the disputed premises for starting Dalmil and as such, the plaintiffs/purchaser is not the landlord of the tenant.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties has submitted that the learned court below has not committed any error while evaluating the evidence on record and the findings are according to law. Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the necessary facts with Patna High Court C.R. No.108 of 2019(8) dt.08-10-2024 regard to the requirement of personal necessity were stated in the pleading and the pleading was proved by the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. He has also contended that in a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity, an attornment by the tenant in favour of transferee of the land is not necessary for creating a subsisting tenancy between them. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties submitted that the learned court below has considered the question of partial eviction as required by the proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act and has rightly come to the conclusion that the entire premises will fulfill the reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs and the partial eviction will not substantially satisfy the reasonable requirements of the plaintiffs. Reliance has been placed in the case of Kalawati Tripathi & Ors. Vs. Damayanti Devi & Ors. reported in (1992) 2 PLJR 214.