BHOLA PRASAD Vs. KASHI KANT JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision is barred by limitation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averment made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this Civil Revision is condoned and the limitation petition, thus, stands disposed of.

(2.) THE defendant is the petitioner against the judgment and order of eviction dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Munsif, Madhubani, decreeing Title Suit No. 2 of 1999 filed by the plaintiff -opposite parties. This Civil Revision has been filed under the proviso to section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which empowers the High Court to call for the records for the purpose of satisfying that the order of eviction is according to law or not.

(3.) THE factual matrix essential for disposal of the present application are that the plaintiff -opposite parties filled a suit for eviction with regard to Schedules I & II properties of the plaint with the assertion that these properties, which are part of plot no. 594, situated in village Behta, P.S. Benipatti and District Madhubani, belonged to one Ramdeo Mahto and Ramchandra Mahto, who sold the same to the plaintiffs on 17.1.1975 and 3.2.1976. The property described in Schedule I of the plaint was let out to the defendant -petitioner in 1985 for running a flat -rice mill. After about three years, the plaintiffs constructed a khaparpose Makan, which is described in Schedule -ll of the plaint, and let out the same to the tenant -petitioner for residence. Further case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no. 3 for the last several years is running a medicine shop in a rented house and plaintiff no. 2 on the assurance of the tenant - petitioner to vacate the premises, purchased X ray machine to run the same in Schedule -II premises, but the defendant -petitioner did not thereafter vacate the premises and, accordingly, he has opened an X ray plant at Basopatti. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, they require the premises described in Schedules I & II for their personal use in good faith. As plaintiff no. 2 wants to shift the X ray machine in the suit premises and plaintiff no. 3 wants to shift his medicine shop in the same, they requested the tenant -petitioner to vacate the suit premises, but he refused to do so, hence the suit. The defendant -petitioner has also defaulted in payment of rent, for which a suit has been filed separately.