BHANU PRASAD Vs. CHANDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application by the defendant-petitioner under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1997 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 29 of 1994 whereby the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Dhanbad, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal necessity as contemplated under Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act.

(3.) THE defendant-petitioner contested the suit by obtaining leave and by filing written statement denying each and every allegation made in the plaint. According to the defendant the area of the suit premises is 202.6 Sq. feet. It is stated that the defendant is a handicapped person and has been running a Cycle and Rickshaw repairing shop in the tenanted premises consisting of two small kutcha khaparposh rooms since 1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-, but in January, 1990 the plaintiff threatened the defendant to vacate the premises or to enhance the rent for a sum of Rs. 175/- and the defendant-petitioner under the compelling circumstances started paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. However, the rent was ultimately enhanced at the instance of the plaintiff by filing a rent fixation case. The defendant further denied the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff. It has specifically been alleged that the plaintiff required the tenanted premises for giving it to another person after taking huge amount of Salami and on higher rent. It is stated that the claim of personal necessity of the plaintiff is not bona fide; rather mala fide, which is evident from the fact that in the year 1986 the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against another tenant on the ground of personal necessity of his son and the said suit (Title Suit No. 10 of 1986) was compromised and the plaintiff got vacant possession of the tenanted premises. However, the plaintiff did not set up his son in business; rather after constructing a pucca house over the said premises and after taking huge amount of Salami of Rs. 10,000/- let out the same to another tenant, who is running his business in the name of 'Poddar Book Stores' on payment of higher rent. It is further stated in the written statement that the sons of the plaintiff are engaged in various business and supply work at Naya Bazar and hence the plaintiff had not opened readymade cloth shop on the tenanted premises vacated by another tenant-Nandu Prasad. The defendant, therefore, claimed that the suit is mala fide one, which is liable to be dismissed.