MD.AINUL HAQUE @ ANNU MIAN Vs. ASHISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER was the defendant in Eviction Suit No. 9 of 2000 against whom a decree has been passed by the trial Court allowing the ground of personal necessity and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff by order passed by the Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda, on 31st May, 2005.

(3.) DEFENDANT -petitioner in his written statement denied the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff stating that the plainplaintiff, his father and brother are still living in jointness. They are in a joint possession of the suit premises as well as the other properties. The plaintiff and his brothers are not unemployed but they are doing business of ornaments alongwith their father. It has also been stated that the story of partition among the father and the sons as well as in different brothers is false. At the time of partition among the father and the sons the plaintiff was minor. He was even minor when the property in question was purchased. The minor is not free to enter into any agreement, as s 'uch the story is false and fabricated: The bona fide requirement as shown by the plaintiff is not correct. Plaintiff has no personal necessity of the shop and the plaintiff just wanted to enhance the rent, since it was not agreed by the defendant, Eviction Suit No. 9 of 2000 has been filed showing his requirement of the suit premises which is not bona fide.