UMESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. CHANDRIKA PD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-1997 passed by Munsif 1st, Begusarai, in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 15 of 1995 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-opposite parties for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the shop premises on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of plaintiff 1. Both the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants for their eviction from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, is that they constituted a joint Hindu family and because of old age of the plaintiff No. 1, the property is managed and looked after by his only son, plaintiff No. 2, who has been realising rent from the defendants of three shops of three storied building owned and possessed by the plaintiffs in Mohalla Dakbungalow chawk, Bishunpur, Begusarai. The plaintiffs' further case is that the three defendants were inducted as tenants in three shop-rooms separately on the ground floor of the building on monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The plaintiffs have a small family consisting of only six members including a servant occupied the entire first floor and two rooms, Sehan and garage in the ground floor of the building. The second floor is occupied by the son-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 who lives with his wife and children since after his marriage held in the year 1992. The plaintiffs further case is that the only son of plaintiff No. 1 i.e. plaintiff No. 2 has no son, but two daughters; one married to a Doctor and another is still unmarried and the family, having no male lineal descendant, have reared love for them and do not want them to keep away from their sight. The plaintiffs alleged to have bona fide need and personal requirement of the ground floor of the three storied building for starting a clinic for the Doctor-son-in-law so that he may start his practice and at the same time live in the same building. It is pleaded that for the last one year plaintiff No. 2 has been insisting upon the defendants to vacate the suit premises, but the defendants were not paying any heed. It is further pleaded that the son-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 has passed M.B.B.S. examination in the year 1989 and is unemployed and it is the duty of the plaintiffs to settle him in life. The plaintiff, therefore, made out a case of personal necessity and sought a decree for eviction by instituting the aforesaid suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing their separate written statement. Defendant No. 2 in his written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and agreed to vacate the premises in his occupation by January, 1996. Similarly Defendant No. 1 filed a separate written statement of a few paragraphs admitting the claim of the plaintiffs and agreeing to vacate the suit premises by January, 1996. In fact, Defendant No. 3, who is the sole defendant, has contested the suit by filing detail written statement. The said defendant-petitioner denied and disputed every allegations made in the plaint and stated that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are in collusion of the plaintiffs and they have been impleaded in the suit only for the purpose of fake requirement of personal necessity. The defendant's case, inter alia, is that it is the plaintiff No. 1 who looks after the management of the properties in question and this defendant was inducted by him as a tenant in June, 1992 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have subsequently been inducted by Plaintiff No. 1 in the shop premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/-. Since the business of this Defendant No. 3 has flourished, the plaintiffs in order to exploit the situation demanded enhanced rent of Rs. 600/- and on refusal just to fulfil his evil design the plaintiffs have insisted the defendants to vacate the premises. The defendant, therefore, moved the Controller for fixation of rent in the year 1995 and in retaliation the instant suit for eviction has been filed. The defendant-petitioner denied that the plaintiffs' son-in-law is living in the second floor of the suit premises with his wife and children. As a matter of fact, the son-in-law of Plaintiff No. 2 is doing M.S. at D.M.C. at Darbhanga, and is living in a hostel and the daughter of Plaintiff No. 2 lives at her Sasural. The defendant's further case is that the son-in-law of Plaintiff No. 2 himself possessed landed properties and he is the only son of his father and he has four pucca buildings and several shops. The pucca building of the son-in-law of Plaintiff No. 2 is just by the side of pitch-road. The plea of personal necessity is, therefore, false frivolous and baseless. Defendant No. 3 further denied the fact that the son-in-law of Plaintiff No. 2 is living independently.