JAHEJO DEVI Vs. MOHARAM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted and Appeal disposed of as follows :-

(2.) Inasmuch as one of the grounds taken in the Second Appeal before the High Court was the finding on this ground. The High Court discussed this aspect of the evidence and reversed the finding. The High Court was of the opinion that the finding that there was default in payment of rent from 29th November, 1977 to 10th April, 1978 was erroneous. The High Court noted that rent had been remitted for these months to Sonabarsa address. The High Court was in error in holding that there was valid tender when in spite of the knowledge that Sonabarsa address was not the address they remitted rent to that place. The High Court further went on to say that there was no evidence on record to show that the defendant knew the proper address. In view of the concurrent findings and in view of the letter of the Attorney on behalf of the landlord this is an erroneous conclusion of the High Court. The High Court, further expressed the view that unless he knew the proper address no remittance could have been made to that address. In our opinion, there was no logic in the finding of the High Court that the defendant was justified in sending rent to Sonabarsa. address and there was valid tender. The High Court, therefore was in error in not holding that the respondent was a habitual defaulter. The other ground was the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. So far as the bona fide need of the landlord was concerned the learned Trial Judge discussed the matter and it was admitted that the plaintiff landlord did business in Meghalaya/Assam and their occupation was business. The defendant had not produced any document that plaintiff had another house and land except the suit house. This was an averment and assertion of the landlord. In the premises, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the landlord had got only one house. The suit shop is attached with the Janani Kita of the Plaintiffs, which is the house of the landlord. The case of the landlord was that they were residents of the State of Bihar and due to disturbance in Assam and Meghalaya their business was completely disturbed, and it was not possible for them to do their business there, which was the only source of maintenance of their family members. The plaintiff's family and some of the children of the plaintiff's family had grown up and were sitting idle according to the landlord. Hence the plaintiffs wanted to do their business at Arrah in the suit shop. The suit shop admittedly, it was found, was situated on the main road and it was suitable for the business and it was connected with the residential portion of the landlord through a door. Under those circumstances the landlord alleged that she had bona fide reasonable need of the suit shop for doing their business. The case of the landlord regarding personal necessity was found to be conclusively proved by several witnesses as noted by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge also found that there was disturbance in Assam and Meghalaya and it was difficult to have residence in another State. This fact according to the learned Trial Judge was proved by plaintiffs' witnesses. It was also proved by the admission of the Plaintiff No. 9 in paragraph 11 and Plaintiff No. 6 in paragraph 2 in support of the case of the plaintiff regarding personal necessity. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence the learned Trial Judge found that the case of the landlord about personal necessity was proved. On the same, this finding was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as follows :-

(3.) As mentioned hereinbefore, being aggrieved thereby, the appellants went up in Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court on this aspect was of the view that personal necessity was not proved. According to the High Court the said findings were based on conjectures. The High Court by its reasoning stated that the plaintiffs were not in Assam and there was no such evidence of disturbance or failure in Meghalaya from which it could be proved that people from Bihar could feel apprehensive. The High Court held that there was no evidence of any movement in the State of Meghalaya nor was there any evidence that Biharies had been driven out from that State. Firstly, it appears to us that on the basis of the evidence that the first two Courts have acted, it was not open to the High Court to interfere in a matter like this in Second Appeal. Be that as it may the need, it appears, was reasonable. The landlords are not living in Assam. They are living and carrying on their business in Meghalaya. The plaintiffs allege that they have bona fide reasonable need of the suit shop for doing their business, which was adjacent to the residential house and there was a connected door., There are grown up sons doing no business. In that view of the matter if the Trial Court and the first appellate Court had acted on the basis of the reasonable need, it cannot be said that the Courts have committed any such irregularity which could have been interfered with by the High Court in second appeal. In our opinion, the High Court was unjustified in interfering with the concurrent findings of facts. Section 12(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 provided for partial eviction in certain circumstances.