DILIP KUMAR CHOUBEY Vs. HEMA SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the learned Munsif 2nd, Bhagalpur in Eviction Suit No. 3 of 2006, whereby the learned trial court has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and has directed the defendant, who is the petitioner before this Court, to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within a period of two months from the date of the judgment and order, failing which the same would be carried out through the process of the Court. With the consent of the parties the matter has been taken up with a view to its final disposal at the stage of admission itself. For the purpose of convenience I shall be referring the status of the parties as existing in the court below.

(2.) The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction on the ground of personal necessity for the settlement of her younger son. The suit property is a shop situated in Mohalla-Khalifabagh, Ward No. 13/15 (old), at present Ward No. 29, Holding No. 14 (part), P.S.-Kotwali in the town and district of Bhagalpur. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was purchased by her through a registered sale-deed dated 15.2.2005 for her own use and occupation. It is not in dispute that the defendant was a tenant under the erstwhile owner in one of the four shops situated in the premises. Each of the 4 shops admeasures 100 sq. ft. As according to the plaintiff, her younger son was sitting idle and needed to be settled hence she requested the defendant to vacate the shop and also sent legal notice in the said direction but the defendant refused to vacate the same and hence the suit in question. The case of the plaintiff further is that her son intends to open a television and electronic shops and for which he would require an area of 250 sq. ft. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in the said direction an eviction suit was earlier instituted against a tenant of a different shop which is adjacent to the suit shop, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh and which suit has since been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that the total area of the two shops would more or less satisfy the needs and requirements. The defendant appeared in the suit and after seeking leave of the court under Section 14(4) of the Act he filed a written statement contesting the plea. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the defendant before the court below and before this Court is that the plea taken by the plaintiff is a mere pretext to oust the defendant inasmuch as of the four shops situated in the market in a row, three are already owned by the plaintiff and are in their occupation and which would satisfy the needs of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the defendant that even if he is evicted from the suit shop the total area of the two shops for which eviction suits were filed by the plaintiff would not exceed 200 sq. ft. and thus would not satisfy the needs of the plaintiff for settlement of her son and which raises questions on the plea of bona fide requirement.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings advanced and the evidence adduced, the learned trial court after framing of the issues has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and hence the present civil revision application.