BHOLA PRASAD SAH Vs. RAM DHANI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants have filed the present revision application under the proviso to section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2001 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 30. of 1997, whereby the court below has decreed the suit of the plaintiff -opposite parties for eviction with regard to the properly detailed in Schedule -A of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity under section 11(1)(c) of the Act.

(2.) THE suit premises consists of a shop (Katra) facing the main road and bearing holding no. 35, Circle no. 180, Ward no. 32. situated in Muhalla Jhauganj. P.S. Chawk, Patnacity, Patna. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the land -lords and the father. of the defendants was inducted as tenant in the said shop on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/ - and the last rent was paid up to the month of March, 1996. Thereafter, they stopped the payment of rent. Plaintiff no. 1 was in service and he retired in the year 1993. He has one unemployed son, namely, Shyam Sundar and one handicapped unmarried daughter, namely, Miss Madhuri Kumari. Due to Polio attack, said Madhuri Kumari became handicapped and it is not possible to marry her. Daughter of plaintiff no.1 obtained training in beautician course for the purpose of opening a Beauty Parlour in order to make her self dependent. According to the plaintiffs, the suit premises is required reasonably and in good faith for opening a Beauty Parlour with a view to engage daughter of plaintiff no.1 for her livelihood. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises but they refused to do so and hence the suit for eviction.

(3.) BOTH the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence and the court below having considered the matter held that there was relationship of landlords and tenants between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The sale -deeds, by virtue of which the suit property was claimed to have been sold to the mother of the defendants, were not valid documents as they were executed at Bombay and Calcutta contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act as amended by the State Government. The trial court also held that even if it is assumed that there was a sale by some of the co -sharers of the plaintiffs in favour of the mother of the defendant -opposite parties, the defendants could not be termed as owners/landlords of the suit property as that was not the case of the defendants that the purchase by the mother was made on behalf of the joint family. The trial court also held that the daughter of plaintiff no.1 is handicapped and suffering from polio and she has taken training in beautician course and the suit premises is required reasonably and in good faith for her settlement. The trial court also considered the question of partial eviction and held that the same would not substantially satisfy the need of the plaintiff -landlords.