DILIP KHATRI Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tilak Sao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr S.S.Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) The present revision application has been filed under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, assailing the judgment and order of eviction passed in Eviction Suit No. 08/09 on 25.07.2014. The relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant is not disputed. The defendant-petitioner is carrying on his shop of goldsmith in the suit premises. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity which has been described by the plaintiff as the need for a godown for keeping the goods required for his shop which is on the opposite side of the road. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he has taken a godown on rent in view of his dire necessity. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff firstly on the ground that the plaintiff has got sufficient space in his own house in which his shop is also running, to establish the godown. It is also the case of the defendant that the need of the plaintiff is not reasonable and bona fide. The defendant has further contested the claim of the plaintiff also on the ground that the suit shop is suitable for a goldsmith and not for other purposes.

(3.) Both sides led their evidence according to their pleadings. After scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned court below has returned the finding that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing the personal necessity as pleaded for the suit premises. The defendant's claim for refund of the amount of rent deposited in pursuance to the order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 14030/10 has also been negatived.