BISHWANATH MAHESHWARI Vs. SATYA NARAYAN PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal was brought by the original tenant, who died during the pendency of this appeal, and his legal representatives have been substituted on record, against whom the order of partial eviction from a portion of the suit premises, which is a room, used as kitchen, was passed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) The respondent/landlord brought Title (Election) Suit No. 20 of 1986 in the Court of the Munsif, Chaibasa, for evicting the defendant/original tenant (Bishwanath Maheshwari) from the western portion of the first floor of the suit premises, which is a part of Municipal Holding No. 184 (old) (new 8/99) situate at mohalla Tambakupatti within Chaibasa Municipal Ward No. 8, which is fully described in Schedule to the plaint on the ground of his personal bonafide requirement. Broadly speaking, the case of the respondent/landlord is that his family consist of his son, two daughters, his wife mainly and himself. The ground floor of the building is used for his tobacco business. He is in occupation of one living room, Pooja room and a Verandah in the eastern portion of the first floor of the house, which is inadequate for the accommodation of his family. That apart, the guests and relatives use to visit the plaintiff/respondent/landlord at intervals. On the 2nd floor, there is a small room which is used by him for storing fuel and sundry materials. The defendant/tenant resides, on rent, in the western portion of the first floor, which comprises two living rooms, a kitchen room, a verandah, a latrine, and a balcony. The plaintiff/landlord alleged that in spite of requests, the defendant did not vacate the premises. Hence, the necessity of the suit. The original tenant resisted the suit for eviction, denying the bonafide requirement of the landlord for personal use/occupation. His stand was that the family of the landlord consists of himself, a minor son, a minor daughter (who was subsequently married in 1988) and his mother. One of his daughters has already been married earlier and lives at her matrimonial home. The wife of the landlord does not live with him. According to him, in the first floor, the plaintiff is in occupation of two bed rooms, two verandas, besides one kitchen, latrine, bath rooms, and balcony. Besides, the entire ground floor, the two rooms on the 2nd floor are in exclusive use and possession of the plaintiff/landlord. The accommodation available and in occupation of the plaintiff/landlord is more than sufficient for the accommodation of the small family of the plaintiff, which comprises three members. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute.

(3.) At the trial, both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary. The trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction brought by the landlord/plaintiff on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. It held that the family members residing in the house of the plaintiff were four in number. The stay of his younger married daughter is temporary in nature and a room on the ground floor marked 'D' in the sketch map by the Pleader Commissioner, while a room on the 2nd floor could be comfortable used by the plaintiff/landlord as living rooms. In other words, the trial Court held that the suit premises was not required bonafide by the plaintiff for personal occupation and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the verdict of the trial Court, the appellant/landlord preferred Eviction Appeal No. 12 of 1990 which was allowed in part, on contest, and the suit was decreed for partial eviction of the tenant/respondent from the part of the suit premises, which is a room 9'.4" * 9'.2" used as kitchen. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff/landlord, his wife, who mostly resides at his village home Chaksaho, within the district of Samastipur, often visits him, his son, his mother and his youngest married daughter reside with him in the house in suit and his youngest son-in-law Sasi Poddar (P.W. 4) often visits his matrimonial home and the total number of the family members of the plaintiff/appellant, those residing permanently or making frequent visit, is six, out of which two are casual visitors. The lower appellate Court did not believe the evidence led by the plaintiff/appellant that Sasikant Poddar (P.W. 4) his youngest son-in-law is his Ghar Jamai. The lower appellate Court further held that on the building, the plaintiff runs business in tobacco with godown to stock tobacco and it would be hazardous for the family members to use the office-cum-guest room or the room behind it, which is used as a godown; that the appellant is in occupation of one bed room, a big verandah with is balcony, a Pooja room, a kitchen and a toilet, which is in the first floor on the eastern side with separate staircase leading to the 2nd floor on which there are two rooms, one of which is vacant and there are two water tanks in the other room and the vacant room could not be used permanently as dwelling room for want of a toilet/bathroom on the 2nd floor and it may be used in exigencies as a temporary bed room, and disagreeing with the finding of the Court below, the lower appellate Court held that the landlord was in bonafide requirement of one bed room on the first floor and accordingly ordered for partial eviction of the tenant from the room in the suit premises, which is used as kitchen, which is inter-connected with the door from the side of the landlord.