(1.) I have already heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) The present civil revision application has been preferred by the defendant/petitioner to set aside the judgment/order dtd. 2/5/2014 in Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2008, passed by Munsif, Dehri-on-sone, Rohtas, directing the defendant/petitioner to vacate suit premises in favour of the plaintiff/opposite party.
(3.) The brief fact of the case is that the landlady of the premises/plaintiff/opposite party brought a suit against the defendant/petitioner with the averment that he is the tenant of the premises in question and is running a shop of confectionery/ sweets. As per the deed of kirayanama, the tenancy commenced on 1/1/2008 and was to be terminated on 30/11/2008. The rent payable was fixed at Rs.800.00 per month. The deed of rent agreement is Ext. 1. It was stipulated in the deed that the premises was to be vacated at a prior notice of two months. In paragraph-2 of the plaint, it has been averred that, without the consent of the landlady, the petitioner herein installed an overhead water tank in his shop. She sent a letter to the petitioner/tenant on 27/5/2008 for removal of the overhead water tank, in reply whereof the tenant demanded Rs.30,000.00from the landlady in lieu of the cost incurred on the installation of that overhead water tank. In paragraph-3 of the plaint, it is averred that she sent a notice to the petitioner on 2/6/2008, requesting him to remove the overhead water tank, but he paid no heed and sent reply to the Advocate of the plaintiff on 2/7/2008 and warned the plaintiff to take shelter of the court. In paragraph- 4 of the plaint, it has been averred that the Advocate of the plaintiff sent a reply on 9/7/2008, directing the tenant to vacate the premises till 10/8/2008 on the ground of personal necessity. In paragraph-5 of the plaint, the plaintiff described the personal necessity of the premises for the business of her son and it was said to be a bona fide requirement of the plaintiff.