SURAJMAL AGARWAL Vs. VISHWAMITRA TREHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has been filed by the defendant petitioner/tenant against the judgment and decree dated 31st, July, 1995, passed by Munsif, Jamshedpur decreeing eviction suit No. 3/92 filed by the plaintiff/opposite party for the eviction of the defendant petitioner from the suit promises on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) The plaintiff's case, inter alia, is that the shop premises is in occupation of defendant/petitioner as monthly tenant on a rent of Rs. 300/ - per month. Further the case of the plaintiff is that after the death of his mother the house property including the tenanted premises have been partitioned by and between the plaintiff and his brother Hari Om Trehan by virtue of registered deed of partition. As per the partition northern portion of the house fell in the share of the plaintiff and the remaining portions fell in the share of his brother. It has further been pleaded that the shop premises in occupation of the defendant pleaded that the shop premises in occupation of the defendant fell into the share of the plaintiff and the defendant has been paying rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was running business of Hosiery goods since long before the partition and was residing with his family in a portion of the building which fell in the share of his brother and as such the plaintiff continued in that portion as a tenant after partition. Further case of the plaintiff is that the four shop rooms which fell in the share of the plaintiff are in occupation of different tenants including the defendant and the remaining two rooms are used by him for residential purpose. The plaintiff further pleaded that he has got three grown up sons but due to lack of accommodation two of his sons are not residing with the plaintiff and the only youngest son is residing with him. The plaintiff, therefore, needs the shop premises in occupation of the tenant for his personal use and occupation for running his business of Hosiery goods.

(3.) The defendant/petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant denied the case of personal necessity and made out a case that the plaintiff has raised two storied Puce building on the eastern side of the suit premises with stair case. Further it has been averred that in fact the plaintiff has got other shop rooms besides two storied residential house with kitchen and latrine and out of the six rooms only four shop rooms are now in occupation of the tenant and two other shop rooms had fallen vacant but the plaintiff does not like to carry on business due to his old age. The defendant further case was that the residential house of the plaintiff is just behind the two shop rooms presently lying vacant and as a matter of fact when the defendant did not fulfill the demand of the plaintiff for the increase of rent and payment of Rs. 10,000/ - as an advance the instant suit was filed.