BAIJNATH PRASAD BANARSI Vs. TRIVENI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as B.B.C.Act) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2009 passed by Munsif, East Muzafarpur in Eviction Suit No. 30/06 by which the suit has been decreed and order has been passed for eviction of the revision-petitioner from the suit premises. The parties hereinafter be referred by the rank held by them in the court below.

(3.) There is no dispute that the house standing in R.S.Plot No.397 of R.S.Khata No.225, described in detail in Schedule I of the plaint, belonged to Bishwnath Prasad Gupta and Rajendra Prasad Gupta. The plaintiffs have claimed title over this house, described in Schedule I of plaint, on the basis of the purchase by registered sale deed dated 19.09.2005 in the name of plaintiff no.1 from the descendants of Bishwnath Prasad Gupta and Rajendra Prasad Gupta. The plaintiffs' case is that there are four shops in the ground floor of this house out of which the defendant has been a tenant from before the purchase of the plaintiff in the shop in the extreme eastern side which has been fully described in Schedule II of the plaint. The adjacent shop west to this shop has been in tenancy of Manish Banka and the shop adjacent thereafter was stated to be in the tenancy of Pawan Kumar Dalmiya. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be in possession of the shop in the extreme western side. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff nos. 4, 5 & 6 who are the sons of plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 are sitting idle for want of suitable space for starting their own business and the three shops in the house are suitable for them for the said purpose. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the tenant Pawan Kumar Dalmiya had vacated the shop in his tenancy on the request of the plaintiffs. It is further case of the plaintiffs that they intend to demolish the entire building which is now very old and in dilapidated condition and to construct new building providing for shops to the plaintiff nos. 4, 5 & 6 for starting their own cloth business as the family of the plaintiffs is carrying on cloth business. The plaintiffs have also described in the plaint the details regarding the shops and have stated that the shop in occupation o the tenancy of the defendant would be allotted to Pramod Kumar Barauliya for the purpose of starting his own business of cloth. The plaintiffs have sought the eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity alone.