DEO NARAIN SAH Vs. CHANO KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. That the present revision application arises out of the judgment and order dated 08.02.2001 passed by Munsif II, Samastipur in Eviction Suit No 6 of 1998. The petitioners, who were tenants and defendants in the said suit, were directed to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendants for a decree of eviction on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) SHRI Sukumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has principally raised only three issues while assailing the judgment. Firstly, he has submitted that it was incumbent upon the Court to decide that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and moreso because this was a suit for eviction on ground of personal necessity of the landlord. This not emphatically having been done, vitiates the entire judgment and decree. Secondly, the premises in question was a shop premises but the plaintiff required it for her residence. This was not permissible and lastly, it was incumbent upon the Court to consider the question of partial eviction and not having considered the same at least to that extent, the matter must be remanded for fresh consideration.

(3.) IN this regard, I have examined the pleadings and evidence as well as the judgment impugned. It is undisputed that plot No. 378 belonged to late Mauje Lal Choudhary. Mosemat Kesri Devi is his widow and Parwati Devi is daughter. The two were the vendors to the plaintiff. It is also clear from deposition of D W 5 Deo Narain Sah that Shiv Shanker Prasad, father of Vinod Kumar Choudhary (D W 7) is the Nail. (grandson) from Page 1286 daughter of Mauje Lal Choudhary whose son is Vinod Kumar Choudhary. It is, therefore, clear that Vinod Kumar Choudhary (D W 7) derived title to the plot No. 378 through his grandmother Kesri Devi or for that matter, maternal grandfather Mauje Lal Choudhary. I have examined the written statement of the tenants-defendants. IN the entire written statement not at one place has he disputed that he was not in occupation of Holding No. 14A in Gudri Bazar in Ward No. 7, Samastipur. It is this holding that undisputedly the plaintiff had purchased. It is, thus, manifest that the defendants were in occupation of Holding No. 14A in Ward No. 7 of Samastipur Town which holding was purchased by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had duly got her name mutated in this regard that too to the knowledge of Shiv Shankar Prasad, the father of Vinod Kumar Choudhary (D W 7). That being so, so far as the present proceedings are concerned. it is well established that the plaintiff was the landlady/owner and the defendants were the tenants.