RAM BILASH AGRAWAL Vs. UPENDRA SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application has been filed by the defendent petitioner under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (here in after to be referred to as the 'said Act') challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif-111, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 67 of 1993 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of expiry of lease and also on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the aforesaid two grounds. The plaintiffs case is that he is the owner of the suit premises, measuring 11 feet 6 inches wide opening on Ban Path and 35 ft. deep. It is stated that there are four following shutters on the suit premises but the defendants uses the entire shop. The defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit shop for a period of 5 years by virtue of registered deed of lease dated 1.3.1988. It was agreed inter alia that the defendant shall pay rent of the suit premises @Rs. 2,300/- per month and the period of lease shall be from 1.3.1988 to 28.2.1993 and after expiry of the lease the defendant will hand over the suit premises. The plaintiffs further case was that on the expiry of the period of lease, the defendant did not take step for renewal of the lease and thereby made himself liable for eviction under Section 11(i) (e) of the said Act. The plaintiffs further case is that the plaintiff bona fide requires the suit premises for his personal use and occupation because the plaintiff and his father are Homoeopath Doctor and have gained sufficient experience in the job. Besides this, the plaintiffs brother is also unemployed and sitting idle and the plaintiff wants to settle himself and his brother in Homeopathy medicine business in the suit premises. The plaintiffs further case is that no other suitable site opening on the road is available, except the shop in question. The plaintiff further alleged that a notice dated 25.1.93 was served on the defendant informing him that he is in need of the shop so the defendant should vacate the same after expiry of the period of lease. When the defendant did not vacate the shop in question on the expiry of the lease the plaintiff again sent a notice on 3.6.1993 requesting the defendant to vacate the premises but this- time also the defendant paid no heed to the request of the plaintiff. Hence the suit was filed. The defendant petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter alia that the suit is not maintainable has got no cause of action for the suit. It was further stated in the written statement that at the time of induction of the defendant as tenant in the suit premises, the defendant had to pay under pressure a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as pagri in the year 1983 and a registered deed of lease dated 28.2.1983 was executed. It is alleged that at the time of lease agreement, it was agreed that the lease will continue for 30 years but each lease deed will be for 5 years with a condition that the same would be renewed and the period of tenancy would be extended for a period of 5 years. It is further alleged by the defendant that the first lease was executed on 28.2.1983 for 5 years and on the expiry of that period, the lease was extended for another 5 years by executing another deed of lease on 1.3.1983 containing the same terms and conditions. In terms of the lease deed, the plaintiff was bound to extend the lease for a further period of 5 years. Before the expiry of the lease in 1993, the defendant asked the plaintiff in January 1993 that he was ready and willing for renewal of the lease for another 5 years. The defendant also intimated the plaintiff by registered notice dated 30.1.1993 expressing his intention of renewing the lease but the plaintiff demanded another sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as pagri and also enhanced the rent and on refusal of the defendant, the instant suit was filed. According to the defendant he has been continuing possession by virtue of mandatory terms of renewal stipulated in the lease deed. The defendant also denied and disputed the personal necessity so alleged by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the father of the plaintiff is not dependent upon the plaintiff. He has very flourish Homeopathic practice as well as Godown in Tulsi Market. The plaintiff and his brother Rabindra Sah have been running Homeopathy medicine shop in the well-known area of Sabzibagh which is the best place of sale of the Homeopathy medicine. According to the defendant Tulsi Market where the shop is situated is a good place for shop of Homeopath medicine. The defendant's further case is that the plaintiff has four storeyed Tulsi Market at Ban Path, Patna in which there are large number of shops and also hospital belonging to the plaintiff. There are several shops lying vacant in his possession and some shops were recently let out to the tenants. If the plaintiff and his brother have any requirement of a shop for starting business in Tulsi Market, they could very well occupy the vacant shop. Lastly, it is pleaded that the whole object of the plaintiff is to get pagri and high rent by evicting the defendant from the shop in question.

(3.) The learned Court below framed the following issues: