KANHAIYA LAL Vs. SHIVJEE PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short 'the Act'), arising out of the same judgment, have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE plaintiff opposite party filed Eviction Suit No. 13 of 1989 for eviction of one Most. Tetari from the suit premises standing over 11 dhurs land of plot No. 1239 situate at Mirganj on the ground of personal necessity. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid plot was Gairmajrua of Hathwa Raj, different portions of which were settled by it with different persons for construction of houses and shops. Butan Ram, grand father of the plaintiff and Mahendra Ram took settlement of the disputed land from Hathwa Raj on 2.3.25 on Nazrana of Rs. 22/ . No rent was fixed as the settlement was for residential purposes. Butan Ram constructed tiled roof room thereon. He later took settlement of another piece of land adjacent west of the disputed land over which also he constructed house and started living therein. The house situate over disputed land was used for keeping fuel and shop articles. In February, 1975 Radha Sah, Tetari's husband, took the premises on rent. It is said that Radha Sah had two wives. From the first wife he had a son Rama Sah. Radha Sah took the disputed house on rent as the relationship between Rama Sah and Tetari was estranged. Radha Sah and Tetari thereafter started living in that house. Radha Sah died in the year 1978. Thereafter, Tetari continued to pay the rent. She did so upto January 1987, whereafter she stopped paying the same. The suit was filed on the ground that the size of the plaintiff's family had increased and the plaintiff was experiencing difficulties in living in the other house situate on the western side of the disputed house.

(3.) THE Court below accepted the plaintiff's case and decreed the suit on 12.7.91 Tetari was directed to vacate the suit premises and deliver its vacant possession to the plaintiff. Tetari filed civil revision, C.R. No. 1599 of 1991, in this Court challenging the said order of eviction. The revision was filed on 9.9.91. Soon thereafter on 20.10.91 she died. On 25.5.92 present defendant No. 1 Kanhaiya Lal filed an application for his substitution in place of Tetari on the ground that he had purchased the suit land/premises from her daughter Shail Kumari on 25.11.91. From the record of C.R. No. 1599 of 1991 it appears that the said application was put up for orders on 7.9.92 when notice was ordered to be 'served on the proposed heirs sought to be substituted on 30.10.92 the said order was virtually modified. The Bench observed, 'No step is to be taken for service on the proposed heirs sought to be substituted because the sole heir is being represented by the counsel and on whose behalf Vakalatnama has been filed'. It appears that the said order dated 30.10.92 was understood by the office as order of substitution of Kanhaiya Lal in place of deceased petitioner Most. Tetari Devi and, accordingly, his name was mentioned in the cause title in her place. The civil revision was finally allowed in course of time on 22.12.95. The judgment and order dated 12.7.91 was set aside and the case was sent back to the trial Court for fresh hearing in accordance with law.