SHIV DAYAL TANEJA Vs. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 29.6.2006 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division II, Samastipur in Eviction Suit No. 6 of 2003 by which he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff -landlord -opposite parties against the tenant -defendant -petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to assail the finding of bona fide personal necessity on the ground that in paragraph no. 12 of the plaint it is stated that the husband of the plaintiff had informed the defendant -petitioners about the requirement of the suit premises by the landlady for starting Readymade Clothes business. It is submitted that subsequently in paragraph no. 14 of the plaint it is stated that Readymade clothes shop could not be started in the premises for setting up the business for the son and thus he is left without any work.

(3.) THIS Court does not find any contradiction in the statements made in the two paragraphs. It is clearly mentioned in para 12 that the plaintiff -opposite party no. 1 is a Pardanaseen lady and her business and affairs are looked after by her husband, opposite party no. 2 and further the necessity of opening Readymade Clothes shop has been mentioned in paragraph no.12 and paragraph 14 merely elaborates that the same was for the purpose of son of the plaintiffs. Apart from the fact that there is no contradiction between the two paragraphs, under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, it is permissible for a landlord to take such a ground of personal necessity for starting business by the son of the landlord. Thus, there is no merit in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.