SHYAM PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. RANI BALA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application has been preferred under Section 14 (B) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Act) against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1995 passed by the Munsif, Chaibase, in Eviction Suit No. 16 of 1993 in favour of the plaintiff opposite party.

(2.) THE above mentioned suit was filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants on the bona fide necessity as contemplated under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act for accommodating her two unemployed sons, namely Sapan Paul and Milan Paul for opening up the business for them. The suit premises originally belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and her co sharers Previously a partition suit was there between the co sharers and the suit premises fall into the share of the plaintiff. The relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants have not been denied. In the plaint it has been clearly stated that two sons of the plaintiff, namely, Sapan Paul and Milan Paul were graduates and still unemployed and, as such, for opening up the business for them, the suit premises were required. After taking leave from the court under Section 14 (4) of the Act, the defendants filed written statement and their contention was that the bona fides necessity, as claimed from the side of the plaintiff, was a myth and there was no necessity tor the plaintiff's two sons as they are already employed and doing business According to the defendants, one son was doing business of Sheel Lorha near the Railway station and other son is having a Betel Shop (Pan Gumti). The defendants has also tried to prove their business by issuing some purchase receipts which were marked an Exts. E and E/l. Although it was not specifically averred' in the written statement, but in course of argument, it was not brought from the side of the defendants that there was a still vacant space on the north of the shop room of Manik Paul, another son of the plaintiff, which could be well utilised for accommodating two sons if really there was bonafide necessity for them.

(3.) MR . P.C. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the defendants appellants has challenged the impugned judgment and decree of evidence on the following grounds: