MOHD JAINUL ANSARI Vs. MOHD KHALIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision application has been filed by the plaintiffs -petitioners under the Proviso to Sub -section (8) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1952 (the Bihar Act) against the judgment and decree of the court below by which the suit for eviction of the defendant -opposite party on the ground of personal necessity has been dismissed. At the time of admission of the civil revision application a learned Single Judge (B.P. Singh, J.) noticed the judgment rendered in Shri Udai Banerjee v. Shri P.R. Dutta 1986 PLJR 950 and also noticed the language of the aforesaid Proviso and ordered that the case be heard by a Division Bench. When the matter was listed before the Division Bench, the correctness of the judgment in Shri Udai Banerjee was doubted and it was ordered that the case be heard by a larger Bench. The matter was, therefore, listed before this Bench.

(2.) In the plaint it was stated that the opposite party was carrying on business in the suit premises as a tenant under the petitioners No. 1 and 5 have learnt tailoring and the building in queton was required for carrying on tailoring business jointly by them. The petitioners required the building reasonably and in good faith for their use and occupation. In the written statement, inter alia, it was stated that the petitioners had already filed Title Suit No. 34 of 1985 for the eviction of the opposite party on the same grounds as prayed for in this suit. By the amendment of the written statement, the opposite party was allowed to introduce the fact that petitioner No. 1 has opened a tailoring shop just in front of the suit premises in his own building and doing his tailoring business there with the assistance of petitioner No. 5.

(3.) The trial court held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It further held that petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 were trained tailors. It accepted the case of the opposite party that petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 were already running a tailoring shop and, they, therefore, did not require the suit building reasonably and in good faith for their own use and occupation. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs have filed this civil revision application.