BACHI DEVI Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these cases have been heard together and analogous as they arise out of the same judgment and decree.

(2.) THE revision petition has been preferred by the defendant no.2 (alleged tenant) against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1995 passed by the Second Addl. Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in Eviction Suit no. 20 of 1991 by which the suit has been decreed partially on the ground of personal necessity. First Appeal no. 123 of 1997 has been preferred by the plaintiff -opposite party Smt. Kamla Devi against the order of partial eviction alone which was in the form of inter change of the suit holdings between the plaintiff and defendants. First Appeal no. 123 of 1997 was originally filed before the District Judge, Nalanda, as Title Appeal no. 7 of 1995.

(3.) THE facts of the case run as follow : -The suit holding which is holding no. 241 of Biharsharif Municipality stands on plot no. 33 of Khata no. 184 and contiguous holding as holding no. 242 also stands on the same plot. Originally both the holdings were owned by the husband of the plaintiff, namely, Mujeelal, who was working as a stamp vendor in the Civil Court. In the year 1971 the plaintiff has purchased both the holdings and the land beneath it from her husband by a registered deed of purchase and she started her own business of General Stores and of grocery in holding no. 242 while the holding no. 241 was originally inducted to one Madholal who was doing business in the name of a firm which was named as defendant no. 1 in the suit. After the death of Madholal, defendant no. 2 Bachi Devi started doing business in the shop house in holding no. 242 and these happened only during the pendency of the. suit. The plaintiff filled the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and her requirement has been depicted in the plaint to the effect that her husband because of ailment and old age became bed -ridden and was having no income and she alone is doing business of General Stores and Kirana in holding no. 242 for earning her livelihood. But for better business her holding became too small and which requires to be broadened for keeping more articles for sale in the business and as such holding no. 241 was necessary to be vacated so that both the shops could be amalgamated for betterment of the business of the plaintiff.