LAGANDEO PRASAD Vs. NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 against the JUDGMENT : and decree passed in Eviction Suit no. 2 of 1996 by the Munsif, Raxaul at Motihari.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows : - The opposite parties as plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises which is a shop run by the defendants. Originally the shop house was rented for four years and an agreement was executed on 31.7.1984 but the said agreement was extended orally till April. 1991 but even after that period the defendant did not vacate. Plaintiff no. 2 is the son of plaintiff no. 1 and the plaintiffs now want the suit premises for their bona fide necessity as plaintiff no. 2 being an educated unemployed youth wants to open a shop for readymade garments. When the plaintiffs demanded vacating of the shop house from the defendants he denied and hence this suit.

(3.) IN the written statement filed the defendants has denied all the averments although relationship of the landlord and tenant has been admitted. According to the defendant, plaintiff no. 2 is still a student and prosecuting his studies in college and he is not an unemployed youth and there was no necessity of the suit house being vacated for the purpose of opening up a shop by the plaintiff no. 2. According to the defendant, this suit has been filed only with the pretext of pressurising the defendant for increase in the rate as on earlier occasion also the rents were being increased time to time. On earlier occasion the plaintiffs had filed an eviction suit being eviction suit no. 9 of 1994. The suit was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff no. 2, the son of the plaintiff no. 1 was a minor and the necessity as claimed could not be proved. An appeal was preferred being eviction appeal no. 2/1 of 1995 -96. The appellate court has also upheld the dismissal ORDER :on two grounds that the son of the plaintiff was a minor and that the defendant could be able to prove that the eviction suit was a malafide one only to get the rent being increased. The appellate JUDGMENT : was passed on 10.1.1996 and only after 3 to 4 months of such dismissal the present suit has been filed on the same necessity as was urged earlier.