MD IRSHAD Vs. MD HASHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short 'the Act ') has been brought by the defendant against whom 1st Munsif, Sasaram has passed a decree for eviction under Section 11 (1) (c) & 11 (1) (e) of the Act.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit on 5.1.1994 for eviction of the petitioner -defendant from the shop described in Schedule 'B' in which the petitioner has been running business of watch, clocks etc. since long. The petitioner had taken the shop from Md. Afsar on rent of Rs. 250.00 per month. The plaintiff purchased the house and shop described in Schedule 'A ' to the plaint from the landlord of the petitioner by means of six registered sale deeds dated 23.2.1993 and then filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner -defendant from the suit premises. The plaintiffs has been running a business of sale and repair of watch, clocks etc. He has a shop in Dharamshala Road at Sasaram which is a busy market place where, according to the evidence of the plaintiff himself, many shops of sale and repair of watch, clocks etc. situate. The shop premises in which the petitioner has been running his business is not in the market place. There is no other watch shop in the locality. The case of the plaintiff is that he requires the suit premises for his bonafide personal needs since the existing shop in which he is carrying on his business is too small. As a matter of fact plaintiff 's case is that he requires the entire building purchased by him by registered sale deeds for his personal use and use of his family members. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff had taken a shop on rent in Dharamshala Road, Sasaram from one Birendra Singh. The petitioner resisted the suit merely on the ground that the plaintiff 's claim for ejectment is not bonafide and he does not require the suit premises for his personal use since it is not located in the suitable locality for such business. In this connection it would be useful to report paragraphs 10 and 11 of the written statement filed by the petitioner -defendant as follows : ''That the personal necessity of a transferee shall not be thwarted upon the tenant. Moreover, the plaintiff carries on the shop business of watch and clock in the main Dharamshala Road which is an important site of business. The disputed premises situated in the interior part of the town, which is not fit for the business of watch and clock. Most of the important watch and clock shops are located in the same locality i.e. Dharamshala Road, where at present the business shop of watch and clock of the plaintiff situates."

(3.) P .W. 2, Nayyer Azam has a shop in Dharamshala Road. He has stated that the suit shop has been purchased by the plaintiff and he asked him to vacate the shop. The witness agreed to vacate the suit shop whenever the plaintiff will ask him to do so. The witness further stated that the plaintiff has obtained the decree for eviction in respect of another shop and the shop is in his possession.