MOHDNIZAMUDDIN Vs. KAILASH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision-application under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, the petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of an order of his eviction in a suit filed under Section 14 of the said Act.

(2.) The suit was filed by the opposite party, on 5.12.1985, stating, inter alia, that she bad purchased the Holding no. 4A, Ward No 2 of Madhupur Municipality of which the defendant is a monthly tenant @ Rs. 25/- according to the English calendar month ; that the tenancy was also assigned to her ; that the defendant also called her as landlady by paying rent for the month of August, 1979, that the defendant defaulted in payment rent from September, 1979 and thus is liable to be evicted under Section 11 of the Act but she reserves her right to file a separate suit on that ground ; that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises for personal use and for benefit and use of her children ; that her son is sitting idle and she wants him to get a business started but due to non-availability of space she has not been able to settle him ; that the suit premises is an ideal place for business being situated in a business place and therefore she is good faith, bonafide and reasonably requires the suit premises.

(3.) The defence of the petitioner shortly stated was that the plaintiff is not the sole owner and he is monthly tenant under a large number of coowners ; that under the pressure and coercion the payment of the rent by the defendant was doubled for the month of August, 1979; that he paid rent to the outgoing landlord and also the plaintiff ; that she refused to accept rent which he started remitting by postal money orders that there was never agreement about the date of payment and he used to pay rent by the last day of the next following month as per the custom and practice with all tenants and never defaulted in payment of rent, that the claim of personal necessity is vague and false as neither she nor members of her family require the suit premises reasonably besides her sons are already well-settled running their business and (he eldest son is highly placed in Bokaro Steel Plan t; that the plaintiffs' family has another big house in the same ward which is ideally suited both for residence as well as business ; that there is a big vacant portion on the ground floor of the house in question which can accommodate four shops ; that the premises was taken on rent for manufacturing purposes and from the very beginning he has his wheat and flour mill on which he is dependent for his livelihood.