MANIK LAL Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.K. Sinha No.2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioners and Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-opposite party. This civil revision application under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.6.2008 passed by the learned Munsif, Patna City, District- Patna in Title (Eviction) Suit No.26 of 2007, whereby the learned court below while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff has directed the defendant-petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment and order.

(2.) This civil revision application was heard and under an dated 4.8.2008 was admitted for hearing and the lower court records were summoned. The defendant-petitioners were directed to make payment of the current as well as arrears of rent. It is not in dispute that the interim order passed by this Court admitting the civil revision application has not been violated by the defendantpetitioners. For the sake of convenience, I shall be referring to the status of the parties as it was occurring at the stage of trial. The suit property is a shop admeasuring 8'x10' bearing Holding No. 81/108(A) in Circle No.100/98 which forms part of M.S. Plot No.2563, Sheet No.193, Ward No.20/26/44/57 situated in MohallaSadiquepur, P.S. Alamganj, P.O.- Gulzarbagh, Patna City in the town and district of Patna. The details of the shop in question are mentioned in Schedule-I to the plaint. The suit property along with other land was purchased by the plaintiff along with his wife from one Banke Bihari Lal under a registered sale deed dated 4.2.2004. It is the case of the plaintiff that upon oral partition taking place in between him and his wife, whereas three shops along with Parti land were allotted to the share of wife towards the southern part of the holding, the plaintiff was allotted the other part of the holding comprising of 3 shops on the northern part. The name of the plaintiff has been duly mutated in the holding. It is the case of the plaintiff that his eldest son, namely, Ankit Kumar Gupta aged about 20 years was sitting idle and wanted to start a hardware shop in the premise occupied by the defendants and which was ideally suited for the said business purpose. It is further the case of the plaintiff that despite request being made to the defendants to vacate the shop in question in view of his bona-fide requirement for the same, the defendants after agreeing to vacate the same, later on retracted and refused to do so and which led to filing of the suit in question on grounds of bona-fide requirement and personal necessity of the said shop. The defendants appeared and filed written statement and while refuting the plea of bona-fide requirement and personal necessity, the defendants relied upon a registered lease deed dated 13.9.1993 executed by the erstwhile owner of the property, namely, Bankey Bihari Lal from whom the plaintiff and his wife were purchasers, to submit that in terms of the lease-deed they are entitled to continue in tenancy until expiry of 25 years of the leasedeed. It was thus sought to be contended that as the period of lease has not yet expired and would be expiring only on 13.9.2018, hence the suit is not maintainable and cannot be instituted during the period of fixed tenancy under the registered lease deed. The parties led their respective evidence and the learned trial court by the judgment and order impugned has decreed the suit requiring the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff and hence this civil revision application.

(3.) Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the defendants who are petitioners before this Court. While relying upon the registered lease-deed dated 13.9.1993 which has been marked as Exhibit-A in the suit it is contended that the finding of the learned trial court as found in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment and order impugned, is unsustainable. Mr. Sinha while questioning the judgment impugned has submitted that the moment the plea of fixed tenancy under a registered lease-deed was raised by the defendants it was the bounden duty of the learned trial court to have considered the same as an issue and the learned trial court in rejecting the contention on grounds that the suit has been brought on plea of bona-fide requirement and personal necessity, is an abdication of jurisdiction by the learned court below. Mr. Sinha relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court Smt. Kalawati Tripathi vs. Smt. Damayanti Devi, 1993 AIR(Pat) 1 more particularly paragraphs 18 to 20 thereof has submitted that by transfer of the property by the lessor in favour of the plaintiff under the sale-deed in question the plaintiff has stepped into the shoes of lessor and is bound by the rights and liabilities created under the lease and cannot shirk away therefrom. It is submitted that the plaintiff has chosen to institute the suit on grounds of bona-fide requirement and personal necessity even when he was aware of the subsisting lease which binds him in terms of the conditions contained therein by operation of law. Learned counsel in support of his submission that the defendants cannot be evicted from the suit premises until the subsistence of the lease has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court Modern Hotel, Gudur vs. K. Radhakrishnaiah, 1989 AIR(SC) 1510 more particularly paragraph 11 of the judgment, in which the Supreme Court while considering a similar issue has held that in absence of any forfeiture clause a tenancy would subsist until the continuation of the period of lease. It is submitted that these self eloquent circumstances could not have been ignored by the learned trial court while passing the judgment and order impugned.