RAJESH KUMAR Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN SAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred under Section 14(i) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 against the judgment and decree passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 23 of 1995 by the Sub-Judge IX, Patna on 22.1.2000.

(2.) THE relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. According to the plaintiffs-Opposite parties the suit premises were purchased in the year 1980 in the name of plaintiff No. 1 for their own occupation and residential purposes but for some reason or other they could not be able to occupy the suit premises which as a pucca single-storeyed house having opening towards the road. Then on being approached the suit premises were leased out to the defendant No. 1 for five years on the basis of a registered lease deed dated 15.9.1989. After the lease period was over then the plaintiffs were to vacate the suit premises but then there was negotiation between the parties and the lease period was extended for 11 months on an agreement being arrived at on 9.9.1994 but then also the suit premises were not vacated and hence after giving notice the above mentioned eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff on two grounds, namely, for personal necessity and opening a sweet meat shop in the front portion and for residential purpose in the back portion and also for expiry of tenancy as contemplated under Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(e) respectively. It was also mentioned that the eviction suit was filed on the basis of Section 18 of the B.B.C. Act. In respect of personal necessity it was contended from the side of the plaintiffs that they are residing in a rented house and the owner is pressing hard for vacating and that the whole suit house is necessary for the accommodation of the large family of the plaintiffs having 8/15 members amongst whom some are school and college going students. In respect of expiry of tenancy it was contended that the extension of the lease period was made for 11 months as per Section 18 of the B.B.C. Act on a consensus being arrived at between the parties but since after that expiry of the period of the defendants had no right to stay over.

(3.) BOTH parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary. Several issues were framed including that of partial eviction and the learned Court below after considering the evidence on record and the materials available came to the finding that the plaintiffs could establish both the grounds of eviction i.e. expiry of tenancy and personal necessity and then decreed the suit holding that partial eviction in the teeth of the personal necessity as stated from the side of the plaintiffs would not suffice their need. Hence this revision petition.