MUNNA THAKUR Vs. HARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the defendant-petitioner against an order dated 28-3-1987 passed by Sri O. P. Singh, 3rd Additional Munsif, Darbhanga, in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 1985, by which he has refused the petitioner tenant to grant leave to contest the suit and consequently decreed the suit, for eviction filed under Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The suit was under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act and it was prayed that the plaintiff required the suit premises to set up his unemployed son in business, particularly, in view of the shortage of space available In the light of the facts that may be brought in the suit, the Court was only required to examine whether factually the claim of the plaintiff would justify, if proved, the eviction of requirement of a son to set up the business is indeed a reasonable requirement but whether the son on facts can and is in a position to set up a business will have to be determined. The defendant filed an affidavit stating broadly that all the sons of the plaintiff are engaged in the business of the plaintiff which they are carrying on in the rest of the building in which the suit premises lines. Further claim is that there is no paucity of space, there being five rooms instead of two as claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The trial court virtually embarking upon the examination of the correctness of the defendant's case rejected the affidavit and decreed the suit consequently on merit. What the court was really required to examine was whether the defendant has made out a case in the affidavit which on prima facie examination required adjudication in the suit, If the plea in the affidavit was of such a character that it was untenable in law or on facts, ex facie, the Court could have been right in refusing permission to the defendant but if the plea required examination of witnesses and determination of facts then the Court should have allowed the matter to go to trial by granting leave. The law has been spelt out in this regard in a decision in the case of Precision Steel and Engineering Works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518 which related to the provisions of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act which is similar to Section 14 of the B. B. C. Act. Paragraph 12 of this decisions reads thus: