SURENDRA KUMAR AZAD Vs. HANIFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.2001 passed in Eviction Suit No. 23 of 1999 by the Additional Munsif -lll, Bihar -sharif, decreeing the suit for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity in terms of section 11 (1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ').

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the suit property appertains to Holding No. 143, measuring 1 katha of land, described in the schedule of the plaint, situated in the town of Biharsharif. The said land belonged to one S.M. Shoaib, who had two wives, namely, Bini Nasiran and Sanjida Khatoon alias Ladli. Bini Nasiran has no issue, whereas, Sanjida Khatoon (second wife) has one son, namely, Fazle Rabbi alias Makki and a daughter, namely, Durrashahwar alias Lucy. The plaintiffs ' case is that on 18.2.1992, Shoaib gifted the aforesaid holding measuring 26 1/2 feet from north to south and 52 feet east to west along with other lands to his said minor son and daughter, which was accepted by their mother Sanjida Khatoon. In the deed instead of 26 1/2 feet from north to south, it was wrongly mentioned as east to west and similarly instead of 52 feet east to west, it was mentioned as 52 feet north to south, which the plaintiffs got corrected while purchasing the same. Said sister Lucy orally gifted her share to her brother Fazle Rabbi alias Makki and her mother Sanjida Khatoon and their names were mutated. On 9.12.1998, aforesaid Fazle Rabbi and Sanjida Khatoon sold the suit premises by two sale -deeds in respect of 10 dhurs each in the names of the two plaintiffs.

(3.) DEFENDANT -opposite party no. 3, namely, Janardan Prasad, appeared and contested the suit. He filed a written statement tating that holding of the suit land is not 143 but 146 and it never belonged to the vendors of the plaintiffs. He is not the tenant either of the plaintiffs or their vendors. He also denied bona fide need of the plaintiffs. He further stated that his brother Surendra Kumar Azad (petitioner herein) is tenant of holding no. 146, which belongs to Md. Shahabuddin alias Parwej, and is doing his own business over the suit premises. Thereafter, said Surendra Kumar Azad was added as a party to the suit and he filed his written statement and has also stated the same very thing, which defendant no. 1 had stated. Apart from the facts stated by defendant no.1 -opposite party no. 3 ion his written statement, he further stated that the holding in question is holding no. 146, which he has taken on rent from Md. Shahabuddin alias Parwej for running a shaw -mill and he is running the same and he is not the tenant of either the plaintiffs or their vendors.