SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. JUGAL KISHORE BARNWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the petitioners in an eviction suit. This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment dated 5-6-2000, passed by the learned Munsif, East Muzaffarpur, in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1996 Jugal Kishore Barnwal v. Santosh Kumar and Ors., whereby the plaintiffs suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity in terms of Section 11(1)(c) of the Act has been decreed on contest with costs and the defendants have been directed to vacate the suit premises within a period of three months.

(2.) WE shall go by the description of the parties before the trial Court. The plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiffs eldest son (Navin Chandra PW6) is unemployed, and the suit premises is needed to set up a business for grocery and herbal items/products and to settle him in life. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the suit premises is a single room/shop covering 11 'x35' on the ground floor in the township of Muzaffarpur which was let out to the original defendant (Lal Babu Sah) who has been running a shop in grocery items. The original defendant died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by his heirs as defendants who are petitioners before me. The plaintiffs case is that he is himself engaged in the business of grocery items and herbal items/products in a rented premises in the township of Muzaffarpur. He has five sons and two daughters. Navin Chandra is his eldest son who could not get a job for himself, is unemployed, and is in urgent need of the suit premises to start business. The plaintiff has, therefore, decided to start a business for his eldest son in grocery items and herbal items/products in the suit premises. On the other hand, the defendants' case is that the plaintiff is the owner of a double-storeyed house and the defendants are in possession of only one room on the ground floor. The defendants' further case is that the plaintiff does not need the suit premises reasonably and in good faith, and is only a device to evict the defendants. Further more, the dispute arose because the plaintiffs demanded a big sum of pagri and enhancement of rent which the defendants could not afford and the suit premises does not justify the same. Lastly, the defendants' case in the alternative is that partial eviction may be ordered. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The trial Court on a consideration of the materials before him has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's eldest son (Navin Chandra) is sitting idle since 1996 and, therefore, the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith requires the suit premises to settle his son. Navin Chandra has the requisite experience of the business in grocery and herbal items and has also the requisite capital for the same. He has lastly found that partial eviction will not serve the plaintiff's need. In view of the these findings, he has decreed the suit and ordered for eviction of the defendants within a period of three months' time.

(3.) THE revisional power of the High Court with regard to summary procedure for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under the Bihar Act and the provisions which are in pari materia in similar statutes of other States have been the subject-matter of discussion of a large number of judgments of the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has rightly brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vaneet Jain v. Jagjit Singh (supra), which is a case under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. Section 15(6) of the Haryana Act is set out hereinbelow: