SHREEMATI KANTA DEVI KANDEL Vs. SHYAM SUNDAR GARODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner(hereinafter referred to as defendant) under Section 14 (8) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "B.B.C. Act") against the judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed by learned Munsif-IInd, Bhagalpur in Title Eviction Suit No. 03 of 2000 by which and whereunder he decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to plaintiff-opposite party(hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) within sixty days from the date of judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff filed above stated Title Eviction Suit No. 03 of 2000 against the defendant seeking relief for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises fully described at Schedule-A of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity. The case of the plaintiff is that he is absolute owner of the suit premises and defendant was inducted as tenant of the suit premises on the basis of oral Kirayanama at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month and after that the defendant started his business of jewels and ornaments in the aforesaid premises. The defendant paid rent of the suit premises up to February, 1998 and wife of the plaintiff realized the rent and granted receipts thereof on behalf of the plaintiff but since March, 1998 up to December 1999 the defendant did not make payment of rent and accordingly, defaulted to make payment of the rent Since March 1998. Further plaintiff's case is that his one son, namely, Amit Kumar Garodia aged about 21 years is unemployed whereas his another son is separately carrying his own business and has no concern with the affairs of the plaintiff as well as his younger son, namely, Amit Kumar Garodia. The plaintiff is in need of the suit premises so that he could settle his younger son, Amit Kumar Garodia in business and for starting a business for his younger son, the suit premises is most suitable place and the need of the plaintiff cannot be satisfied by partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises but he refused to vacate the suit premises and thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of defendant from the suit premises on the ground of his personal necessity and so far as recovery of unpaid rent is concerned, he kept his right reserve to file a separate suit.

(3.) The defendant appeared in the aforesaid suit and contested the suit by filing her written statement. The defendant raised ornamental objections in her written statement and, specifically, pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises and, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the present suit. The defendant also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and plaintiff on the ground that the wife of plaintiff is actual owner of the suit premises and that is why she had filed House Control Case No. 12 of 1998 under Section 10 of the B.B.C. Act against the wife of the plaintiff and in the aforesaid suit, the wife of the plaintiff appeared and contested. She further pleaded in her written statement that she took the suit premises on rent from the wife of the plaintiff and started her business when there was no other shops in the vicinity but subsequently, due to development of the area several shops cropped up and the wife of the plaintiff got constructed 15 shops on holding no. 17 and out of which six shops are still vacant. Again, she pleaded that presently near about eight shops are vacant and alternative accommodation for business of son of plaintiff is available. She further pleaded that as a matter of fact, the wife of the plaintiff having taken huge amount in Salami and on a higher rent got inducted several tenants into some of the above stated vacant shops. She has also pleaded that near the suit premises two shop rooms in continuity are still vacant and the son of the plaintiff can be adjusted in the aforesaid shop rooms but the plaintiff has been letting out the aforesaid shops to other persons with an object to derive maximum income through the rent. It has further been pleaded through amendment that during pendency of the suit, plaintiff completed all his incomplete and unplastered shop rooms but some of them let out to the tenants. He also pleaded through amendment that elder son of the plaintiff was earlier running his business in one shop room of holding no. 17 but he left Bhagalpur and settled at Suraj, Gujarat and thereafter, the plaintiff's younger son, namely, Amit Kumar started his business of cosmetic goods by occupying the shop which was vacated by elder son of the plaintiff. She also pleaded that claim of the plaintiff is neither bona fide nor in good faith. She has also pleaded that wife of the plaintiff agreed to this point that defendant will have absolute right to continue as tenant of the suit premises so long she goes on making payment of rent or till voluntarily vacates the suit premises and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to seek decree of eviction on the basis of his pleadings. The defendant has also pleaded that when plaintiff refused to receive the rent, she paid rent of the month of March, 1998 and afterwards by money orders but the plaintiff refused to receive the aforesaid money orders. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the defendant made prayer for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.