KAUSHAL KISHORE PRASAD Vs. SHOBHA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sharvan Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been placed for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 2 of 2010 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra whereby he has set aside the judgment dated 27.04.2010 and decree dated 10.05.2010 passed in Eviction Suit No. 41 of 1987 by learned Civil Judge-I, Junior Division, Saran, Chapra. The learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit for eviction which was filed on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) The appellants herein are the tenants and were defendants before the Trial Court.

(3.) Before entering into the merits of the dispute raised before the Trial court it would be apt to take note of the time taken by trial court in disposal of eviction suit filed on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. Eviction suit was filed in the year 1987 by Devendra Nath Prasad (Original Plaintiff No. 1) and Murlidhar Prasad (Plaintiff No. 2/Respondent No. 4) on the ground that they required the premises for their personal occupation. There is no dispute over the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The suit remained pending for more than two decades. It appears from the judgment/decree of the Courts Below that original plaintiff No. 1 died in the year 2003. It also appears from the order of learned First Appellate Court that defendant No. 1 died on 07.10.1997. It further appears that on the death of the parties, their legal heirs got themselves substituted in place of such parties. Written statement was filed on behalf of the substituted heirs of the original defendant on 17.02.2007. After nearly 22 years, issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 16.06.2009. The judgment of the Trial Court came to be delivered on 27.04.2010, rejecting the plea of personal necessity of the plaintiff, as according to learned Trial Court, such claim for personal necessity was not bona fide. Landlords (Plaintiffs) preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. Learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court holding that the land owner had bona fide personal necessity of occupation of the house for themselves and accordingly passed a decree of eviction from the suit premises vide the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011.