Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Civil Revision application no. 96 of 2019 has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 referred to as "BBC Act") against the judgment dated 27.02.2019 and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2006, whereby and where under learned trial Court decreed the suit in suit in part and further directed the defendants/petitioners to vacate the premises in question bearing holding no. 589 within 60 days and handover to the plaintiff/opposite parties failing which the plaintiff/opposite parties will be at liberty to evict the defendant from the suit premises by the process of the Court.

8.i. Learned counsel further submits that holding no. 589 was partially vacant land which is specifically mentioned in para 19 of the written statement and on vacant land BBC Act will not apply and accordingly the said eviction suit in itself is not maintainable. Further, the area of holding no. 589 is also not correctly mentioned as in the plaint it is given as 100 feet length and 45 feet wide but as per written statement of the petitioners/defendants length is 54 feet and 24 feet wide.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents 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 defendants/petitioners are all admitted facts with respect to holding no. 589. The plaintiffs/respondents specifically pleaded in the plaint that the suit premises is reasonably and in good faith required for their own residence and personal 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.

18. It may be noted in this regard that the above decision of the Apex Court is with respect to a case of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Control) Act, 1960 and Section 2(2) of that Act is exactly the same as Section 2(b) of the BBC Act. In the aforesaid case, originally the premise was a vacant land and subsequently the tenant makes construction and pays rent for the entire premises, it is held that the said premises cannot be legally called a vacant land and cannot be legally deemed to stand out of the definition of "building" as provided in Section 2(b) of the Act. In the case of Sri Binay Kumar Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 Maheshwari Vs. Fanindra Prasad Mishra, reported in 2002(2) PLJR 865, it has been held that provisions of the Act would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, the eviction suit under the BBC Act is maintainable.