LAWS(PAT)-1987-8-19

KRISHAN KANT PANDEY Vs. SUNITI BALA SARKAR

Decided On August 21, 1987
AJIT KUMAR ROY Appellant
V/S
SUNITI BALA SARKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Civil Revision applications are being disposed of by this joint adjudication because the issues involved are similar yet they have been subjected to divergent interpretation by the two trial courts resulting in piquant interpretational contradictions which have to be resolved by a common appraisal and decision.

(2.) The three suits which gave rise to the present applications were all for eviction of the tenants-defendants by bringing into operation the provisions of Section 11 (1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') applying the doctrine of reasonable personal necessity from a single premises, portions of which were occupied by them separately, the plaintiff being the same. In Civil Revision Nos. 2105 and 2106 of 1986, the tenants defendants are the petitioners and in Civil Revision No. 1207 of 1986, plaintiff is the petitioner who is opposite party in the former two applications.

(3.) In Title Eviction Suit Nos. 50/25 and 49/24 of 1984/1986 giving rise to Civil Revision Nos. 2105 and 2106 of 19; 6, the plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement of the premises in suit for the use of her son for the partnership business with her son-in-law was accepted but in Title Eviction Suit No. 48 of 1984 of giving rise to Civil Revision No. 1207 of 1986, this plea of the plaintiff has been negatived. The premises in question is a house having four storeys bearing holding No. 3 New Holding No. 379/307A Circle No. 23 Ward No. 16 situated in the city centre of Patna on the road known as Govind Mitra Road. The petitioners defendants in Civil Revision Nos. 2105 and 2106 of 1986 were the tenants in different portions of the first and second floors of the building. The opposite party defendant in Civil Revision No. 1207 of 1986 was a tenant in a portion of the groundfloor of the same building. The rest part of the building, i. e., the 3rd floor and 4th floor and a portion on the ground floor were in occupation of the landlord-plaintiff, her son and her son-in-law. In all the suits, the eviction of the tenants was sought on the ground that the portions of the building occupied by the tenants were required for transferring from Varanasi and expanding the business of a printing press to be run by a partnership firm consisting of the plaintiff's son and son-in-law. It is stated that this is a family partnership firm and is registered as "Hind Art Cottage" and for this purpose, the entire first floor including the portion occupied by the tenants in former civil revision applications and the portion occupied in the groundfloor by the tenant in the latter civil revision application were required.