NAGENDRA PRASAD BARNWAL Vs. JITENDRA PRASAD BARNWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application has been directed against tile judgment dated 18.12.1996 passed by Munsif, Giridih in Eviction Suit no. 12/96 thereby and thereunder the suit of tile plaintiff -landlord for eviction of the defendant -appellant on the ground of personal necessity of the suit premises was decreed and the appellant -defendant was directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises.

(2.) THE fact in short for the purpose of this revision is that the O.P. plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit alleging therein that his father, Jogeshwar Prasad Barnwal constructed a house over plot no. 669 of Isri Bazar and inducted defendant -petitioner as tenant on a portion of the house which consists of three rooms as described in schedule of the plaint on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ - p.m. The said Jogeshwar Prasad Burnwal, died leaving behind his throe sons, Jitendra Prasad Barnwal, the plaintiff, Dilip Prasad Burnwal and Anil Kumar Barnwal and they jointly inherited the land and house of plot no. 669 but Dilip Prasad Barnwal also died leaving behind a son Bablu Prasad Barnwal and a daughter. After that there was a partition in the family i.e. between plaintiff, his brother Anil and nephew Bablu and half portion of the house situates on plot no. 669 was allotted to the plaintiff and half to Anil Kumar Barnwal and another separate house was allotted to Bablu. So according to partition all the three branches are in possession of the same. The suit premises in which defendant was a tenant was allotted in favour of the plaintiff and as such necessary intimation was given to the defendant and the defendant attorned rent to the plaintiff and accepted him as a landlord. It is also the case of the plaintiff that earlier plaintiff was carrying on business with his brother but after partition brother of the plaintiff also separated in business and as such the plaintiff is idle and he has got no other suitable accommodation for starting a business and so for his livelihood the plaintiff wants to open a shop in the suit premises which is on the G.T. Road and suitable for business and thus, requested the defendant to vacate the same in May 1996 but he refused to vacate the same, hence the suit was instituted for eviction of the defendant for the reason mentioned above.

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing a separate written statement and denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but has not specifically denied that originally the suit premises belongs to Jogeshwar Prasad Barnwal or the alleged partition in the family of the plaintiff. However, it was contended that brother and nephew are necessary parties in the suit and even the sister of Bablu also a necessary party because they jointly inherited the property of Jogeshwar Prasad Barnwal. This defendant has also denied that he was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises by the father of the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 500/ - and after the death of plaintiff's father he was also paying rent to the plaintiff. A denial was made about the personal necessity of the suit premises and it was submitted on behalf of this defendant that plaintiff is carrying on business of cloth in the name and style as Barnwal Cloth Store at Ishari Bazar so it is totally false to say that the plaintiff has requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises as he wants to open a shop.