MOAZZAM ALI Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Kaushal Kumar for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Chandra Prasad Sinha for the opposite party on the interlocutory application bearing No. 4500 of 2003 wherein prayer has been made to condone 34 days delay in filing this civil revision application.

(2.) IT appears from perusal of the interlocutory application that the aforesaid delay in filing the civil revision application was caused on account of erroneous advice tendered by the counsel for the petitioners that period of 90 days is available for filing the revision under Sub -section 8 of Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act, 1982 from the date of judgment and decree passed under the said Act. As the delay in filing the civil revision application was caused due to the erroneous advice of the learned counsel and period of limitation for filing the revision under the Act is sixty days, I deem it expedient to condone the delay in filing this civil revision application. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay of 34 days in filing the civil revision application is condoned. Having condoned the delay, I heard the counsel for the parties on the merits of the civil revision application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have assailed the impugned judgment and decree on two grounds. That perusal of the evidence of the parties including that of defendants would establish that the plaintiffs have no personal necessity as the younger son Anil Kumar is already gainfully employed in connection with dairy business of his father. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the evidence of D.Ws 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, and 19. While referring to the evidence of the aforesaid D.Ws. learned counsel led special emphasis over the evidence of D.Ws. 6, 9. and 19, as those witnesses specifically deposed that as and when they went to the dairy premises to purchase milk for their use they noticed the presence of Anil Kumar in the dairy premises associating himself with dairy business. Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the plaintiffs that they required the suit premises for establishing medicine shop in order to gainfully employ Anil Kumar should not be believed as Anil Kumar has no degree/diploma in pharmacy which is necessary to establish a medicine shop. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the trial court that partial eviction from the suit premises will not suffice the needs of the landlord is also erroneous and have been recorded without even ascertaining the actual length/width of the premises as also ignoring the tact that the premises is situate on the corner of the plot and is facing road on two sides.