SHAILENDRA KUMAR CHAURASIA Vs. RAM NATH SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition has been preferred by the above named defendant - petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by Sub -ordinate Judge III Samastipur in Title Eviction Suit No. 14 of 1984 whereby the defendant -petitioner has been evicted from the house bearing holding No. 237/A appertaining to Khesra No. 381, 382 (part) under Samastipur Municipality, the description of which has been given in detail in Schedule D of the plaint.

(2.) THE admitted position remains that one Srimati Asha Devi wife of Baij Nath Sah @ Lakhan Sah was the original owner of the suit premises and the defendant was inducted by her as a tenant in the suit premises at a rental of Rs. 50/ -per month. The plaintiff -Opposite party purchased the house in question from said Asha Devi under registered sale -deed dated 3.1.1981 from his personal income, but in the sale deed the name of father Ganga Sah was wrongly entered as another vendee. After sale Asha Devi informed the defendant -tenant to pay the rent to the plaintiff and accordingly the defendant started making payment of rent of the suit house to the plaintiff and subsequently in the month of May, 1982 the rent was enhanced from Rs. 50/ - to Rs.75/ - per month. According to the plaintiff he had his vegetable shop in Gudri Bajar Market which was under the control of Samastipur Municipality but those shop house in the Gudri Bazar Market were demolished and new shop houses were constructed and were settled with the highest bidders and unfortunately the plaintiff could not be able to get an allotment in the newly constructed shops. The plaintiff then started his vegetable shop on road near Bhutnath Chowk. The suit house is required for shifting of the vegetable shop of the plaintiff to the suit house and which is just near the vegetable market in the Gudri Bazar area. On the ground of such personal necessity the eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant -petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. According to the defendant there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the correct state of affairs has not been properly stated and suppressed by the plaintiff. The defendant -petitioner has raised the plea of non -joinder of necessary parties. According to the defendant Ganga Sah father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and he constituted a joint Hindu Mitakshra family along with his two sons, namely, Ram Nath Sah and Ram Chandra Sah and the wife Kalo Devi. After the death of Ganga Sah the eldest son Ram Chandra Sah became the Karta of the family and during the pendency of this eviction suit Ram Chandra Sah made a Mahdanama in favour of the defendant for sale of the suit premises for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ - and advance of Rs. 1100/ - was taken by Ram Chandra Sah. The Mahdanama was executed by Ram Chandra Sah not only for himself but for the other co -parceners also as the karta of the joint co -parcenery. When Ram Chandra Sah failed to execute the sale deed on the basis of the Mahdanama the defendant filed Title Suit No. 43 of 1987 for specific performance of contract against Ram Chandra Sah karta of the joint co -parcenery. It is further stated by the defendant during the course of trial of the eviction suit that after the Mahdanama was executed practically the eviction suit was abandoned and the same was dismissed for default but afterwards it has been revived with ulterior motive. On the ground of personal necessity it has been denied from the side of the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff is running his vegetable shop at Bhutnath Chowk and there is no necessity of the suit house to be evicted. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: ''1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action or right to sue?

(3.) WHETHER plaintiff reasonably and in good faith requires the suit house for personal necessity?