UDAY NARAYAN TIWARI Vs. GAURI SHANKER JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 13.6.94 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 1/1985/1/1993 whereby the learned Addl. District Judge Vth Court at East Ghamparan set aside the order dated 17.10.1985 passed by the Sub-Judge, Motihari, in Eviction Suit No. 5 of 1984 and allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction with a direction to vacate the suit premises within a period of two months.

(2.) The plaintiff-opposite party filed eviction suit No. 5 of 1984 against the defendant petitioner for his eviction from the said premises on the ground of personal necessity. The defendant filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. He denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and according to him, the plaintiff did not have the bona fide personal necessity of the suit premises.

(3.) Both the parties in support of their respective cases led evidence and the trial Court dismissed the suit after recording finding that the plaintiff failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the ground of personal necessity the trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the same. Against the said judgment the plaintiff I filed appeal and the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court after recording a finding that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The lower appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court regarding personal necessity. Against the said judgment the defendant filed second appeal in this Court bearing No. 399 of 1987 which was finally heard by a Division Bench and the matter was remitted back to the lower appellate Court for consideration of the question as to whether the space where two rooms are under construction could be utilised by the plaintiff for his passage or not. It was further held by the Division Bench that if the lower appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff can use the said space for passage, then it goes without saying that the plaintiff's case of personal necessity has got to fail. The judgment and decree were accordingly set aside and the lower appellate Court was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law in the light of the said direction, whereafter the impugned order has been passed.