DR. HEMCHANDRA JHA Vs. SMT. ANJANA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision filed under proviso to Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Rent Act) challenging the order passed by the learned Munsif decreeing the suit for eviction of the petitioner from a building on the ground of personal necessity as provided under Sec. 11 (1) (c) of the Rent Act. According to the plaint, the opposite party -plaintiff resides in a rented building with her husband and family. The rented building is neither suitable nor sufficient for her accommodation . She requires the suit building for her own residence and for the occupation of her husband and children. The opposite party purchased the suit building on 24.2.1984 and the petitioner -defendant is in occupation of the same as a tenant from before her purchase. After purchasing it, she repeatedly requested the petitioner to vacate it, but he did not. On these averments a decree for eviction was prayed. Although in the original plaint, the opposite party also stated that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the rent from March to July, 1984, that statement was deleted by amendment of the plaint before the service of summons on the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner in written statement, after stating the usual technical objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, like waiver and estoppel etc., stated that he was never informed about the purchase of the suit building by the opposite party and he did not attorn to her. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He was never asked to vacate the suit building. The opposite party does not require the suit building for her use and occupation; rather she is negotiating to transfer it and in order to get fancy price, she instituted the suit to get vacant possession as no buyer will purchase a tenanted building.

(3.) It may be noticed that although in the plaint, as amended, prayer for decree for eviction was made only on the ground of personal necessity as envisaged in Sec. 11 (1) (c) of the Rent Act, yet the procedure laid down in Sec. 14 which applies to such suits was not followed. Thus although the petitioner after his appearance in the suit did not file any application for leave to contest the suit, his written statement was accepted and he was allowed to contest the suit.