NAND KUMAR AND BROTHER Vs. RAM PRASAD RAJAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This Revision Petition has been preferred by the above named petitioners, who happened to be the defendanttenant in Eviction Suit No. 35 of 1989, 5 of 1990 before the 3rd Addl. Munsif, Giridih.

(2.) The suit for eviction was instituted on 17.11.1989 by the opposite party as plaintiff under Section 14 of BBC. Act claiming the relief of eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the building premises consisting of two Pucca rooms being a portion of holding No 447/A, 447/A-l and 447/B of Ward No 2 (old) corresponding to Ward No. 5 (new) of Giridih Municipality situated at Makatpur within the Giridih township. On the ground floor of the building, there are three parts. The plain tiff-opposite party runs a laundary in the name and style of Azad Hind Laundary and the other two portions were occupied by the petitioners-defendants on the extreme other portion and in between the plaintiff and defendants, another tenant Harish Chandra Bagga, who runs the business of cloth in the name and style of Jolly Textiles. Admittedly the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on monthly rental and the suit has been filed under Section ll(l)(c) of the B.B.C. Act on the ground of personal requirement/neces sity. Such necessity was elaborately stated in the plaint in paragraphs 3 to 6. Shortly speak ing the necessity were three fold, namely. expansion of the counter of the laundary belonging to the plaintiff as the business trans actions have been increased vigorously and expansion was considered a must but the premises the plaintiff was occupying was quite insufficient, inconvenient and unfit to accom modate and facilitate the customers. Second ground was to use and apply modern tech niques for dry cleaning and washing cloth to run its business smoothly and facilitate the demands of customers and as such a drying tumbler is necessary to be installed and due to frequent power failure, a generator set is to be installed. The third ground is for a passage about 4 ft. wide for ingress and egress of a Super Bajaj Scooter which the plaintiff has booked in the year 1986 itself but the delivery could not be taken due to lack of passage for taking it inside, as the plaintiff is having his residential accommodation on the first floor of the building.

(3.) It has already been mentioned that in between the shop establishment of the plain tiff and the defendant, there is another tenant Harish Chandra Bagga who is also occupying two rooms of the same size of that of the defendant-petitioner. It is the case of the plaintiff that by an agreement Harish Chandra Bagga has made an undertaking to vacate his shop premises as and when necessary and demand made by the plaintiff-opposite party.