RATANLAL BAID Vs. SOHANLAL SANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, the petitioner who was defendant in the Eviction Suit brought by the opposite party for recovery of possession of the suit premises has challenged the order of the Munsif, Kishanganj, dated 21.11.95 whereby the suit has been decreed against the petitioner and he has been directed to vacate the suit premises within a month of the order.

(2.) The petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the landlord-opposite party Sohanlal Saha long time back. The tenancy consists of one Pacca room with G.C. Sheeting roof having Varandahs on both sides, courtyard, latrine, and tubewell situated in Sonarpatti Road, Kishanganj, on monthly rental of Rs. 85/-. The landlord was serving as postmaster in village Pathawamari Sub-Post Office under Thakurganj Police Station in the district of Purnea. His two sons are unemployed. The landlord intended to engage them in a business but due to lack of accommodation he was not in a position to settle his sons. For this purpose he wanted the petitioner to vacate the residential premises in his occupation.

(3.) According its the landlord the suit premises was very suitable for opening shop for his sons. He served a notice on the petitioner to vacate the premises but the petitioner did not oblige. On the other hand, he filed a complaint before the House Controller, Kishanganj. The tenant alleges that the landlord became annoyed because he filed a petition before the House Controller for certain direction to the landlord. The suit was filed on untenable grounds. He did not require premises and the suit was not bona fide. The landlord founded his case on the ground that he wants to settle his two sons. The landlord retired during the pendency of the suit. The landlord asserted in his plaint that is sons are capable of running any type of business. The suit was filed on 16.7.91. The petitioner appeared and filed an affidavit in December, 1992, seeking leave to contest the suit. The petitioner defendant alleged therein that in 1989 one of the sons of the plaintiff, namely, Captan Prasad, who generally resides at Kishanganj turned hostile to the defendant and in order to evict the defendant he served a notice through his lawyer on the ground of personal necessity but the same was replied stating therein that the plea of bona fide personal necessity was false because only about three months back one room in the same building was let out to one Gyanchand who started a medicine shop who vacated. After institution of the suit landlord rented the premises to an Industry Officer. The son of the plaintiff disconnected the electric connection. The suit premises was never repaired for which the petitioner filed an application under Sections 6, 9, 10 and 20 of the B.B.C. Act before the Rent Controller, Kishanganj. The petitioner further alleged that the plaintiff's sons are not sitting idle but are engaged in different business.