MANJU ROY Vs. HIRA MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23. 3. 1994 passed in Eviction Suit no. 66 of 1991 whereby the suit has been decreed on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed the above mentioned Eviction Suit against the defendants-petitioner stating therein that he is the owner of holding no. 120/99 and the suit premises having on area of 17. 5' x 9. 5' in the part of the said building. Defendant no. 1, the mother of defendent no. 2, was inducted as tenant in the suit premises in the year 1981. Later on a fresh tenancy was created in the year 1990 in favour of defendant no. 2 on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/ -. Defendant no. 2 is the actual tenent but to avoid future complication and technicalities defendant no. 1 was also made party in the suit. The monthly rent was payable on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month. Defendant no. 2 is running a jewellery shop in the suit premises in the name and style of Matri jewellers. The mother of the plaintiff died. He has four sons out of whom two sons harendra Kumar Mehta and Arun Kumar mehta after graduation are sitting idle. He requires the suit premises for the above named two sons or atleast one son may be engaged by starting a business of readymade garments with retail cloth shop in the suit premises. The above two sons are fully determined to start a business of readymade garments with a retail cloth shop in the suit premises. He has no other suitable space for starting the business. He requires the entire suit premises for his need and partial eviction would not satisfy his need.

(3.) THE case of the defendents is that defendant no. 1 has unnecessarily been made party in the suit as she has no concern with the tenency in any manner. The plaintiff is not 16 Annas owner of the suit premises. Initially the mother of the plaintiff proclaimed to let the suit premises under the tenancy on rent for opening a shop. She was approached and on finalisation of the negotiation a shop was opened in the year 1981 and a lease deed was executed on 12. 3. 1981 for 11 month between the mother of the plaintiff and defendent no. 1. On demand defendent no. 2 paid Rs. 10,000/-for construction of a shop. On exipry of the said lease no lease was executed between them but defendent no. 1 remained in the premises doing her business. On 31. 1. 1984 a fresh lease was executed between the mother of the plaintiff and the defendent no. 1. Subsequently, defendent no. 1 left doing business due to some personal problem. Defendent no. 2 wished to do the business in the said premises and as such an agreement was arrived at between defendent no. 2 and the plaintiff and the same was reduced in writing on 26. 8. 1990 by which defendant no. 2 was permanently inducted as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/ -. There was no term for payment of rent by the 7th day of every month. The tenancy with defendent no. 2 began on 26. 8. 1990 for indefinite period and there was no term of termination of the tenancy by the end of every English calendar month. The sons of the plaintiff are not sitting idle rather they are still studying in Patna university and they are not in a mood to engage themselves in business rather they are intending to get some government job. He had spent huge amount on fitting and furniture etc. for starting the business when the shop was taken on rent. It was not speculated that the permises shall be a vacated within a short span of time, rather it was given to understand that the lease is permanent one. The sons of the plaintiff never intended to do any business rather they wanted to continue their study and to appear in the competitive examinations of the executive service. The plaintiff is not in bona fide need of the suit premises. The plaintiff is earning a good money from his employer as well as by rent from the said building.