KEDARNATH BOHRA Vs. SAFIULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How Car the question "reasonably and good faith" required, as occurring in Section 11 (c) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, is justiciable in a Court of Law, falls for decision in this second appeal, which is at the instance of plaintiff-landlords who have failed in the Courts below to obtain eviction of their tenant on this ground.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-landlord is that in order to start their own business, they acquired the disputed premise on 3-7-1973 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-, in which building, the respondent is holding a shop from before, as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- only. The plaintiff's further case is that they have no independent business of their own, and they have no control over the affairs of the Hindu undivided family business, i. e., M/s. Mahadeo Bastra-lya, belonging to several members of their family. The disputed shop is near the tail-way station and according to them most suitable to fulfill their need and, therefore, they paid a higher price in its acquisition. The plaintiffs don't possess any vacant premise to start the proposed independent business. Plaintiffs thus bona fide and in good faith require the disputed premise,

(3.) On the other 'hand, the respondents' case is that since the plaintiffs have their own joint family business, and they have not separated from the said business, the plaintiff can't be said to require the premise bona fide and in good faith. Respondents' further case is that they are holding shop since 1943 in the disputed premise, which is their only source of livelihood.