SOHAIL KARIMI Vs. SANJIDA BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision application is filed under Section 14 sub clause (8) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 29.04.2011, passed in Eviction Suit No. 19 of 1997, by the learned Subordinate Judge, VI, Jamshedpur, whereby the defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises and to deliver the khas vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of the order.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the judgment and the evidence discussed in the judgment, submitted that the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and thereby committed error while passing the decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the plaintiffs' witnesses i.e. P.W. 1, pointed out from the cross -examination that in paragraph 26, 27, 33 and 40, certain admissions have been made by the plaintiffs' witnesses. Likewise, admission made in paragraph 17 of P.W. 3 is also referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Defendants' Witness No. 2 and Defendants Witness No. 3 have supported the case and in this context, he has also referred the examination -in -chief of these witnesses. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the plaintiffs' case is based on bona fide personal necessity and in this context, the averments have been made in the plaint that they are three brothers and the two brothers are unmarried, because of shortage of space and considering this personal requirement of the plaintiffs, the court below passed an order in favour of the plaintiffs and thereby allowed the suit. It is further submitted that from the evidence on record, and on the basis of certain admissions, the facts reveals that two sons of the plaintiffs are residing in abroad (Saudi Arabia). However, this fact has not been properly considered and appreciated by the court below while considering the ground of personal necessity. It is further submitted that the ground of personal necessity is not proved on the basis of evidence on record. However, the court below by accepting the pleadings and the supportive evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses, passed a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the court below has also not explored the probability of partial eviction. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring proviso of Section 11 (1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, pointed out that duty is cast upon the Court to explore the possibility of partial eviction. By referring the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the court below has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the plaintiffs are required to prove their own case but they themselves have demolished their case on the basis of certain admissions made by the witnesses during cross -examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the ground of personal necessity is also required to be existed on the date of passing of the decree, therefore, subsequent development, if any are also relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in question. However, the court below failed to appreciate this aspect and thereby committed an error while allowing the suit.

(3.) IN reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff's witness No. 1 in his cross -examination in paragraph 40 has admitted that they are having five rooms and despite this admission, the court below did not consider this evidence and thereby committed error in allowing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the desire expressed by the plaintiffs cannot be said to be bona fide. The said requirement is required to be proved by cogent evidence. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have not proved their case for personal requirement and the same is also reflected from certain admissions made by the plaintiffs' witnesses during their cross -examination, the ground of personal bona fide requirement, as claimed by the plaintiffs has not been proved. However, the court below has not properly appreciated this aspect of the matter and thereby committed an error in passing the judgment and decree.