SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. SAJJAN KUMAR BAJORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2011 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2005 by learned Munsif-II, Bhagalpur whereby the suit has been decreed with a direction to the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within 60 days of the judgment and order. The defendant is before this Court in Revision. I shall be referring to the party position as it existed before the trial court for the sake of convenience. The suit property is a shop measuring 18 feet x 9 feet bearing Municipal Holding No. 54 (old), 68 (new) under Ward No. 8 (old) and 15 (new) situated at Mahabir Prasad Dwivedi Road in the town and district of Bhagalpur. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff for eviction. The tenancy is not disputed and the defendant has been in occupation of the shop in question since February, 1983. It is the case of the plaintiff that his son Prahlad Kumar Bajoria after passing his B. Com. examination in the year 2002 is sitting unemployed and hence he required the suit premises to establish and set up a business for his son. The plaintiff claimed personal necessity as his requirement was bona fide, reasonable and in good faith for establishing his son. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had paid rent only up to February, 2003 and whereafter no rent has been paid and the defendant is a defaulter in this respect. It is further the case of the plaintiff that his requirement would not be satisfied by partial eviction of the tenant and that he requires the entire suit premises. It is stated that the plaintiff approached the defendant several times with request to vacate the premises of which the last request was made on 4.10.2005 but as the defendant flatly refused, hence the suit in question was the only remedy available for the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendant who is running a homeopathic pharmacy shop in the suit premises by the name of M/s. Shiv Shankar Homeo Pharmacy appeared before the trial court and sought leave to contest by filing an affidavit which was also treated as written statement on her behalf. As stated the tenancy is admitted by the defendant who also admits payment of rent up to February, 2003. It is stated that in March, 2003 the plaintiff adopted violent and aggressive attitude and tried to demolish the tenanted premises for dispossessing the defendant but the situation was saved by intervention of the local people. It is also the case of the defendant that for causing loss and harassment to the defendant, the plaintiff made holes in the roof and began to fill water damaging the medicines. It is stated that that the matter was reported to the Senior Superintendent of Police and peace was restored for sometime but as the harassment continued hence the defendant filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 28 of 2003 seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of the physical condition of the tenanted premises. It is further the case of the defendant that she is not a defaulter and that the rent is being paid through money order. It is also the complaint of the defendant that on the failure of the plaintiff to carry out repairs in the tenanted premises, the defendant approached the House Controller, Bhagalpur and who has directed the plaintiff to carry out the repairs vide order passed on 9.5.2005 and against which order the plaintiff has filed an appeal. It is also the case of the defendant that she alongwith her family is running the homeopathy medicine shop which is the only source of income and that she does not have sufficient fund to shift her business elsewhere. It is stated that the plaintiff has constructed a market complex in the year, 2003 in which there are more than 55 shops. It is stated that one shop by the name of M/s. G.R. Pharma is being run by the plaintiff or his son and thus the claim of personal necessity based on unemployment of the son Prahlad Kumar Bajoria is not correct. It is stated that the plaintiff is a big landlord and the alleged bona fide requirement is only a pretext to evict the defendant without their actually being any necessity for the same.

(3.) On the basis of the rival pleadings the issues were framed of which the Issue No. 2 relating to the availability of cause of action to the plaintiff, Issue No. 3 relatable to the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff and Issue No. 4 relatable to partial eviction are the main issues requiring a consideration.