RAJIV KUMAR Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri Bahma Nand Prasad, Munsif, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1992 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-Opposite parties under Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act.

(2.) Plaintiff-Opposite Parties 1 to 7 filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises described in Scheduled-A of the plaint which is nothing but a shop room measuring about 11 '6"/9 '6" situated within the town of Chakradharpur having its Ward No. I and Holding No. 1/109. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and one Ganga Singh, O.P. No. 8 was added as plaintiff No. 8. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners of the two house premises comprised within the Municipal Holding No. 1/109 and 1/110 within the .Ward No. 1 of Chakradharpur Municipality. House No. 1/110 is comprised of 4 bed rooms, 2 in the ground floor and 2 in the first floor besides courtyard, Varandha, latrine etc. This portion is used by the plaintiffs as their residences. Other holding i.e. 1/109 consists of altogether five rooms, one room is used by the plaintiff No. 4 as his Chamber and Anr. room on the road on the side is also used by the plaintiff No. 2 as his Chamber. It should be mentioned here that both the abovementioned plaintiffs axe the Advocates. Out of the remaining three rooms, two rooms are used by the plaintiffs as bed room and the other room on the road side which is practically the suit premises is in occupation of the defendant.

(3.) The defendant admittedly is in occupation of the room on the rental of Rs. 230/- per month. The plaintiffs filed the suit of ejectment for urgent need of the suit premises for their own personal use and occupation. It was pleaded that the suit premises was needed for starting a hardware shop by the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 who are unemployed for a long time. It is also stated that the father of plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 has agreed to provide adequate fund for starting the said business. Father has been made plaintiff No. 8 who is now O.P. No. 8 in this Revision Petition. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were requesting the defendant to vacate the suit premises, but the defendant was avoiding to vacate the same on this pretext or other. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs have got no other shop room available for starting the business for plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7.