HARI MOHAN TRIVEDI Vs. VIJAY KISHORE SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 14(8) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") by the defendant-petitioner against judgment dated 28.10.2014 passed by learned Munsif, Sitamarhi in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2009, C.I.S. Eviction Suit No. 40 of 2014 by which and where under he decreed the aforesaid suit in favour of plaintiff-opposite party on the ground of his personal necessity directing the defendant-petitioner to give vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-opposite party within two months from the date of the decree and on failure to comply the order, the plaintiff-opposite party can resort to the process of the court for eviction of defendant-petitioner.

(2.) The plaintiff-opposite party filed above stated Title Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2009 against the defendant-petitioner for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from one room of R.S. plot no. 5624 situate at Village Punaura now known as Goshala Chawk, Sitamarhi. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party is that plot no. 5624 was allotted to his father in private partition and after death of his father, he along with his brother came in joint possession of the aforesaid plot no. 5624. Further case of the plaintiff-opposite party is that there was an old house over the above stated plot which was removed by him and got constructed new structure consisting seven rooms and out of the aforesaid seven rooms, the defendant-petitioner is tenant of one room. The aforesaid room was let out to defendant-petitioner in January 1993 for running Homeopathy shop on the monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and at the time of taking the aforesaid room on rent, the defendant-petitioner agreed to vacate the same whenever the same is required to the plaintiff-opposite party. Further case of the plaintiff-opposite party is that the plaintiff-opposite party decided to start business of vegetable seeds and pesticides and the room in question was suitable for him to start the aforesaid business and accordingly, in November 2007 he requested the defendant-petitioner to vacate the room in question for the above stated personal need of the plaintiff-opposite party so that he could start his business. The defendant-petitioner assured to vacate the aforesaid room in December 2007 but in spite of assurance given by the defendant-petitioner, he did not vacate the room in question and started sending rent through money orders. The plaintiff-opposite party several times requested the defendant-petitioner to vacate the room in question but his all request went in vain and thereafter, he sent a legal notice to the defendant-petitioner. Even on receipt of the legal notice, the defendant-petitioner did not vacate the aforesaid room and thereafter the plaintiff-opposite party filed the above stated suit under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act.

(3.) The defendant-petitioner appeared before the court below and with the leave of the court filed his written statement. The defendant-petitioner admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and plaintiff-opposite party but averred in his written statement that plaintiff-opposite party is not in need of the room in question because he runs his business of seeds from his house. He further averred that at the time of renovation of his house, plaintiff-opposite party took Rs. 50,000/- from him and the aforesaid amount has not been returned to defendant-petitioner as yet. He further averred in his written statement that plaintiff-opposite party has let out all the seven rooms of the premises and he has sufficient space in his house to run his business and as a matter of fact, the plaintiff-opposite party has brought the present suit with mala fide intention on the instigation of his brother Manoj Trivedi with whom the defendant-petitioner had some differences. The defendant-petitioner further averred that he has no other place for running his business and in case of eviction, his business would be demolished and his family will face starvation. He further averred that to west of the disputed room, there is a vacant shop which was earlier let out to one Girdhari Sharan but subsequently, the aforesaid Girdhari Sharan vacated the said room during pendency of the suit and, therefore, the plaintiff-opposite party may start his business from the aforesaid room which has been vacated by said Girdhari Sharan or may ask the defendant-petitioner to take possession of the aforesaid room.