MUSTAQUE ANSARI Vs. MD. SAFIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2009 and 08.04.2009 respectively passed by Sub Judge-I, Rajmahal in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2007, whereby and whereunder he directed the petitioner to handover the vacate possession of the suit premises to the opposite party within 30 days.

(2.) The plaintiff/opposite party has filed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity for the settlement of his son. The petitioner/defendant appeared in the Court and contested the suit after obtaining leave from court below.

(3.) It is submitted by Sri. Shamim Akhter, learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case plaintiff/opposite party has not disclosed the nature of business, which his son is interested to start. It is submitted that the non-disclosure of aforesaid fact goes to show that the plaintiff/ opposite party has no bonafide requirement, therefore, the eviction suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that even the source of money not disclosed in the plaint from which the business is going to be started. It is also submitted that the plaintiff's elder son is not unemployed, thus, there is no need to settle him. It is submitted that the need of the plaintiff/ opposite party is not bonafide, but merely a desire.