SUSHILA DEV Vs. ILAKHAN LAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 2001 passed by Execution Munsif, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 56 of 1993 whereby the suit filed for eviction against the defendats/petitioners on the ground of personal necessity from the suit premises situate in Mohalia Machhuatoli, P.S. Kadam Kuan in the district of Patna described in Schedule I of the plaint has been decreed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs/opposite parties is that they constitute a joint Hindu family and plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 is the Karta. The property described in Schedule I was alloted to them in Partition Suit No. 311 of 1978 disposed of on 7.2.1979. The suit premises were let out to Mahangu Ram on monthly rental of Rs. 250/ - and after his death his two sons are tenants, namely, the original defendant Rameshwar Prasad who died during pendency of the suit and substituted by his heirs and legal representatives and defendant no. 2/petitioner No. 6 Vijoy Kumar. The other two sons of the defendant though they were not tenants but were also added as party defendants to avoid any technical objection with regard to maintainability of the suit. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3, namely, Lakhan Lal and Bijoy Kumar are unemployed and they required premises reasonably and in good faith for their occupation as they want to open a Kirana Shop and they have no other place to start the said business. Their further case is that partial eviction will not meet their requirement. They requested the defendants to vacate the same but they refused. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) THE suit was tried by adopting special procedure under Section 14 of the Act. Both parties led oral and documentary evdence. The Court below having found that tenancy is admitted held that the plaintiffs/ opposite parties required the premises reasonably and in good faith for their own occupation and the plaintiffs have no other suitable place to run Kirana shop. Court below also held that the partial eviction will not meet the substantial requirement of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and accordingly decreed the suit.