SHOBHA LAL MODI Vs. CHARU LATA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2006 passed by Sri Md. Ajazuddin, Munsif, Katihar in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 19 of 1997, by which he has decreed the eviction suit on contest and directed the defendant petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff -opposite party. The Plaintiff -Opposite Party filed the aforesaid suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit land through sale deeds dated 7.11.1990 from the previous owner. The defendant -petitioner was tenant of the said previous owner and on account of rent being fixed at Rs. 50/ - an application was made before the House Rent Controller also in which the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 2202/ - per month. Appeal against the same was preferred by the defendant -petitioner which is pending. The further case of the plaintiff was that she was carrying on film distribution business and her husband was also carrying on paper business. It was stated that the plaintiff and her husband were living alongwith two grown up sons at present in the house of her father -in -law, which is quite small and it is difficult to carry on business and moreso the house has become completely crowded and there is no scope for convenient living. It is further stated that on the same date on which the plaintiff had purchased part of the building the plaintiff 'shusband had also purchased the other part of the building by a separate registered sale deed from the same vendor. It was also the case of the plaintiff that the property has been purchased because of its good location for the purpose of shifting the place of business as well as place for keeping their goods, the godown and for residential purpose at one and same place for developing the business and for her and her husband as well as children 's convenient residence. Both the children were college going. It was also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff 's husband had also filed a separate suit for eviction of the tenants on the ground of the bona fide personal necessity. Reference was made to the proposed map to be passed by the Katihar Municipality for re -modelling the house by the plaintiff 'shusband and also a map proposed to be passed was submitted by the plaintiff for carrying on business as well as for residing in the house after remodelling of the building. The said proposed map was annexed.

(3.) IN the written statement filed, the stand of the defendant -petitioner is that the suit has been filed due to mala fide motive and the plaintiff, being a Pardanasin lady, was not doing any business. Certain challenges were also made regarding actual previous owners of the land. The further case of the defendant -petitioner is that the plaintiff alongwith her family members are living with her father -in -law and the plaintiff is only a housewife. Moreover none of the brothers of her husband is residing at Katihar, rather working in U.S. and carrying business in Gujrat, whereas sons of the plaintiff were pursuing their study in Delhi. The residential house of the father -in -law of the plaintiff was big one and had sufficient accommodation The further plea was that both plaintiff and her husband have no bona fide personal necessity of any other building. Apart from that it was also alleged that the plaintiff 'shusband has constructed huge multi -storeyed complex and has another piece of land near the suit land and has been selling plots and shops in the said building, and as a matter of fact, the plaintiff 'shusband has started the business of acquiring land and old houses ' and thereafter making construction over the same and to sell flats and shops at a huge profits. It was alleged that the land in dispute and the adjacent part have also been purchased for the same purpose.