KANCHAN PRASAD @ GUDDAR Vs. URMILA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants of Eviction Suit no.42 of 2002 (Smt. Urmila Singh v Smt. Prabha Singh), have filed this civil revision application under the provisions of section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, and challenges the judgment dated 28.2.2005, passed by the learned Munsif III, Patna, whereby the eviction suit has been decreed on the ground of personal necessity of plaintiff no.2 (Smt. Prabha Singh).

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this revision application may be indicated. The plaintiffs claim to be the owner of the house and the defendants are tenants in a portion of the same. The suit was instituted for eviction of the defendants from the premises in question on the ground of personal necessity. According to the plaint, plaintiff no.2 (Smt. Prabha Singh), and her husband (not a party to the suit), are unemployed. She has acquired qualification in tailoring and wants to set up a tailoring shop in the premises in question where she would be helped by her husband. It is further stated in the plaint that the family is living in the rear portion of the house, and it will be convenient for them to set up a shop there. On the other hand, the defendants stated in their written statement that the plaintiffs do not need bonafide the premises in question for their personal need, and the suit has been instituted only to drive away the defendants. The suit on contest has been decreed and it has been held that plaintiff no.2 as well as her husband are unemployed. Plaintiff no.2 has acquired qualification in tailoring and she wants to set up a tailoring shop in the premises in question, and she needs the same bonafide for her personal need. This will provide her with the source of livelihood. The learned trial court also found that partial eviction of the suit will not serve the purpose of the plaintiffs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants (petitioners) has submitted before me that plaintiff no.2 has joined Buxar Civil Court as class III employee in February 2005, and is currently attached to the Family Court, Buxar. He, therefore, submits that personal necessity of the plaintiffs have come to an end during the pendency of this proceeding and, therefore, the civil revision application may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside. He submits that the Court should, in the interest of justice, take into account the pendente lite developments. He has relied on the following reported judgments:-