JAINARAYAN LAL Vs. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant in a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. This civil revision application is directed against the judgment dated 24-9-98 passed by Mr. Adya Sharan Choudhary, Munsif, Jamui, in Title Eviction Suit No. 8/92 (Laxmi Devi v. Jainarain Lal) whereby the suit has been decreed on the ground of personal necessity of the premises in question. The defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises and give possession to the plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment failing which he will be liable to be evicted by the process of the Court.

(2.) According to the plaint, Ram Prasad Lal, the original plaintiff had let out the suit premises consisting of two rooms to the defendant (Opp. Party herein), in 1975, orally at the rate of Rs. 151/- per month for commercial purposes. The two rooms measure 11'.6" x 9'.2" and 9' x 7'. The demised premises has a Verandah in front of it measuring 10' x 3.3", used as a common passage and access to the rooms, as it appears from the report and the sketch map prepared by the Pleader Commissioner (Annexure-4). The parties had concluded a deed of tenancy on 14-8-76. The defendant continued to pay rent at the aforesaid rate up to May 1991, and has completely stopped payment of rent ever since June 1991 till date. Ram Prasad Lal instituted the present suit on 16-7-92 on the ground of personal necessity, namely, he has eight sons and two daughters, two of whom are not well educated and have not settled in life. The suit premises is needed to start a business for them. The suit was decreed on contest by the aforesaid judgment dated 24-9-98, and the defendant has been directed to vacate the premises.

(3.) Mr. Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the suit was instituted by Ram Prasad Lal who died on 26-9-98 i.e. during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by his heirs. The trial Court has committed a serious error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the trial Court failed to take into account the pendente lite development. The suit was instituted on the ground of personal necessity of Ram Prasad Lal which came to an end with his death, an aspect of the matter completely overlooked by the trial Court. In fact, it was Ram Prasad Lal who had examined himself in support of the plaintiff' case and none of the sons have examined themselves. The trial Court has examined the question relating to personal necessity of the substituted heirs without amendment of the plaint. Learned counsel next submitted that there is ample material on record to establish that the plaintiff has two vacant rooms in the Purani Bazar area of Jhajha township, i.e. the same town which can be easily used by the plaintiff to set up their own business. The deliberate refusal on the part of the plaintiffs to occupy the two rooms strikes at the root of the plaintiffs' case, and clearly establishes that requirement is not bona fide. The suit is only a ploy to evict the defendants. Learned counsel has relied on the averments made in paragraph 22 of the civil revision application and a portion of the deposition of D.W. 6 (Jainarain Lal) who is the defendant himself. Learned counsel has relied on the following reported judgments in support of the proposition that the suit should not be decreed on the ground of personal necessity if the suit property is not needed bona fide :(i) (1986) 4 SCC 736 : (AIR 1987 SC 741), (Amarjit Singh v. Khatoon Quamarain)(ii) 1985 Pat LJR (CR) 80, (J. C. Roy v. Halwant Sahay)(iii) (1998) 1 Pat LJR 732, (Umesh Kumar Varma v. Chandrika Pd. Singh)(iv) (1998) 3 Pat LJR 541, (Sachidananda Prasad v. Smt. Savitri Sahay)3.1. Learned counsel lastly submitted in the alternative that the defendant is ready to accept the rear room measuring 9' x 9'.1" by way of partial eviction.