MANZOOR ALAM Vs. MICHEL ENDUZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

(2.) This revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as B.B.C. Act) against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2010 passed in Eviction Suit No. 108/2007 whereby and where under the eviction suit has been decreed and the defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises.

(3.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity. The suit premises is a shop in occupation of the defendant-tenant as monthly tenant. It was the case of the plaintiff that there was only one latrine and bathroom in the premises located on the ground floor and the plaintiff and her husband had difficulty in coming to ground floor for using the said bathroom in view of their advanced age. The defendant appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff, inter alia, denying the personal necessity of the suit shop as pleaded by the plaintiff. The parties went to trial and adduced evidence in support of the rival cases. The learned court below after appraisal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, has come to the finding that there is only one latrine and bathroom in the house in the ground floor where the suit premises is situate and accordingly has recorded the finding that the plaintiff has personal necessity for the suit premises. The learned court below has further considered the issue of partial eviction and has decided the same in favour of the plaintiff holding that the partial eviction would not satisfy the need of the plaintiff.