TARUN KUMAR GHOSH Vs. BHOLA RAM PARSURAMKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment since both of them involve a common question of law arising out of the proviso to Sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').In both these applications, landlord is the opposite party and the petitioners are the two tenants occupying two blocks of the same building. Eviction is sought on the ground of personal necessity which has been accepted by the trial Court without admittedly observing the requirements of proviso to Sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Act in other words, without examining whether the personal necessity of the plaintiff -landlord will be satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part of the premises in question. It is a common ground that there was no pleading by any of the parties in regard to proviso to Sec. 12 (1) (c) except there is general denial that the plaintiff -opposite party's claim of personal necessity is unjustified and unworthy of acceptance.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in both the cases, relied on well known decisions of the Supreme Court reported in : AIR 1978 SC 413 (Rahman Jeo Wangnoo v/s. Ram Chand and others) and : AIR 1984 SC 1799 :, 1984 PLJR (S.C.) 79 (Nasirul Haque v/s. Jitendra Nath Dey) In reply, however, Learned Counsel for the opposite party plaintiff relied on the decisions of this Court reported in : 1985 PLJR 390(Mrs. Veena Rani and others v/s. Mrs. Ishrati Amanulla and another) and : 1985 PLJR 727(Om Prakash Sharma v/s. Kishun Mistry). Their Lordships in the case of Mrs. Veena Rani and others v/s. Mrs. Ishrati Amanulla and another (supra) after noticing the decision in the case of Rahman Jeo Wangnoo v/s. Ram Chand and others (supra) on stating that this point was never urged in the trial court and no evidence was led, went on to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses who had described the suit premises and the size of the family and then came to a conclusion that partial eviction will not satisfy the genuine need of the landlord. Further, this decision spells out the guidelines when dealing with the question of assessing the possibility of satisfying the need of the plaintiff by partial eviction. It will be useful to quote the relevant passage of this decision: -

(3.) The Supreme Court, however, has directed the adoption of a procedure quite different from one adopted by the Bench of this Court. It may be useful to quote the relevant part of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rahman Jeo Wangnoo's case (supra) : -