MAHADEO PRASAD SONI Vs. SUSHILA PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.2008 and 29.04.2008 respectively passed by Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh in Eviction Suit No. 13 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the learned court below has decreed the suit ex-parte as against the opposite party No. 2/defendant No. 1 and on contest as against the petitioner/ defendant No. 2. Learned Court below further directed the defendants to vacate the property described in Schedule-'A' of the plaint and handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 within 30 days from the date of order.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 is that she is the owner/land lady of the suit property details of which given in Schedule-'A' of the plaint. It is further stated that in the month of February 2000 she let out the house situated on the suit property to defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. It is further stated that till September 2001 defendant No. 1 regularly paid rent to her and in lieu of that she issued rent receipt and obtained signature of defendant No. 1 on the counterfoil of the rent receipts. It is further stated that the present suit filed on the ground of personal necessity. It is stated that at the time of creation of tenancy, the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 was posted at Jamshedpur and there itself her sons were pursuing their studies. It is further stated that later on the services of plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 has been transferred from Jamshedpur to Chaibasa. It is further stated that at Chaibasa, there is no good educational institution therefore plaintiff/ opposite party No. 1 wanted to get her sons admitted in a good school at Hazaribagh. However, at Hazaribagh the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 has no other place/house, where she can reside along with her sons. Because of the said reason, plaintiff/opposite No. 1 requires the tenanted premises for her own use and occupation and the need of the plaintiff/ opposite party No. 1 is bonafide and reasonable. It is further stated that she requested defendant No. 1 to vacate the tenanted premises on the ground of aforesaid personal necessity, but instead of vacating the house defendant No. 1 sub-let one room to defendant No. 2 (petitioner) illegally without obtaining the permission of the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 and hence defendant No. 1 has been made party in the present case. It is further stated that the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 had requested both the defendants several times to vacate the suit premises, lastly on 12.12.2002, but defendants had given no heed to her request and therefore a suit was filed for evicting the defendants from the suit premises and handover the khas vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1.

(3.) It appears that summons have been served on the defendants as per the provisions contained in law. It further appears that defendant No. 1 has not contested the suit. However, petitioner/defendant No. 2 filed an application to contest the suit which was allowed by learned court below vide order dated 30.04.2004. Thereafter, a written statement filed by defendant No. 2 (petitioner).