SANJAY KUMAR SONI Vs. SRIMANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition is under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 against the judgment and decree passed in Title (Eviction) Suit no. 3 of 1990 by the Munsif IInd, Samastipur.

(2.) THE suit house forming the subject matter of the eviction suit related to a part of the building situated in the town of the Dalsinghsarai under Ward No.3 of Municipality holding No. 692 which is a pucca shop facing the main road measuring 20 ' north to south x 10 ' east to west. The plaintiff/Opposite party filed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity as contemplated under Section 11(1) (C) of the B.B.C. Act. It is the case of the plaintiff that by amicable arrangement in the family since the year 1950 the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and in possession of the houses in the building alongwith others and that defendant is a month to month tenant at a rental of Rs. 150/ - per month and he is running a shop of bicycle and its spare parts. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of induction of tenancy the defendant agreed that he would vacate the suit premises as and when personal necessity would arise to the plaintiff. The induction was in the year 1985. and till March 1989, rent was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. But in the month of April when the plaintiff demanded the suit house to be vacated the defendant stopped payment of monthly rent. But the suit has not been filed on the ground of defaulter but it has been filed on the ground of personal necessity inasmuch as that the plaintiff needs the suit premises for starting a business of electronic goods in the suit premises which according to the plaintiff is most suitable and convenient for the purpose as the electric generating set belonging to the plaintiff had already been set up in the"nearby residential house of the suit premises.

(3.) SUCH decisions arrived at by the learned Court below does not suffer from any non -reading or mis -reading of the evidence on record and, as such, there is little scope to interfere with such decisions under Section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act. The argument placed that the pleading does not contain as to the factum of the year of commencement of tenancy but it appears from the evidence adduced from the side of the landlord that the tenancy was created in the year 1985 and such evidence of the landlord 'sside gets support from the deposition of Bijaywant Kumar Choudhary D.W.23.