DAYAWANTI DEVI Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties and perused lower Court records, plaintiffs purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 31.8.1999 from defendants mother, Laxmi Devi, wife of late Bhagwan Prasad. She was living in the suit house with five sons. After transfer, she along with her two sons vacated the suit house, but her other two sons, who are defendants in the suit requested the plaintiffs to permit them to continue in the suit house on rent for three months. In the meantime, they would arrange accommodation and shit immediately after rainy season. They were allowed to continue in occupation on payment of monthly rental of Rs. 100/ - for the aforesaid short period. But thereafter they failed to vacate the same. Plaintiffs, therefore, filed Eviction Suit No, 66 of 1999 against two sons of Laxmi Devi, defendants for eviction under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for their personal necessity. Defendants denied relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted their own right over the suit property. They claimed to have purchased the property in the name of their mother, who cleverly transferred the same to the plaintiffs. They have, therefore, filed Title Suit No. 198 of 1999 for declaration that the aforesaid sale deed dated 1.8.1999 was null and void and not operative against their right, title and interest. However, defendants did not contest the suit. Neither oral/documentary evidence was adduced nor plaintiffs witnesses were cross - examined by them. The suit was, therefore, decreed ex -parte on the basis of plaintiffs oral and documentary evidence brought on record. Plaintiffs examined altogether ten witnesses. Laxmi Devi and her two sons got themselves examined on behalf of plaintiffs and both the plaintiffs also got themselves examined as witnesses in the suit. Plaintiffs succeeded in establishing that defendants after transfer of the suit property by their mother, Laxmi Devi in August, 1999 were permitted to continue in occupation of the suit house till 30th October, 1999 on rent of Rs. 100/ - per month. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was proved. Plaintiffs required the suit house for their residence as they had no alternative accommodation in Ranchi town and they were residing in a rented house and actually for the said requirement the suit house was purchased. Bonafide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs in respect of suit house was also established. So far as partial eviction is concerned, the plaintiffs are two brothers and as such both family members are to be accommodated in the suit house. So plaintiffs requirement specially for residential purpose cannot be fulfilled on partial eviction of the defendants.

(2.) I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and eviction decree dated 30.11.2000, passed by Munsif, Ranchi, in Eviction Suit No. 56 of 1999. There is no merit in this revision application. It is dismissed.