REVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. RAGHUNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision application by the defendant/petitioner is directed against the judgment and Order dated 24.5.1996 passed by 3rd. Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur in Eviction Appeal No. 5/94 whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed for eviction of the defendant/petitioner in respect of the entire tenanted premises.

(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party filed Eviction Suit No. 56 of 1986 in the Court of Munsif, Muzaffarpur for eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide personal necessity. The plaintiff's case, inter alia, is that he is the owner of the building bearing holding No. 86 located in Mohalla Nayatola. Ward No. 26 at Niteshwar Marg in the town of Muzaffarpur.

(3.) THE trying Court after recording the evidence of both the parties disposed of the suit in terms of the judgment dated 22.4.94 whereby the decree for partial eviction has been passed on the basis of facts and evidence on record. The trial court decided the issue of personal necessity in favour of the plaintiff. However, on the question of partial eviction the trial Court held that the decree for partial eviction will satisfy requirement of the plaintiff. The petitioner defendant having been satisfied with the decree for partial eviction did not challenge the judgment and decree but the plaintiff being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of partial eviction preferred appeal before the District Judge. Muzaffarpur which was registered as Eviction Appeal No. 5/94. The said appeal was eventually allowed and the suit was decreed in full. The appellate court while confirming the finding of personal necessity held that the decree for partial eviction will not satisfy the requirement of the plaintiff. Hence this civil revision application by the defendant/petitioner challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.