BINOD AGARWAL Vs. HARIDWARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision has been filed for setting aside judgment dtd. 28/1/2010 (decree signed on 9/2/2010) passed by the Munsif, Latehar in Title Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff/opposite party under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Bihar (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short, "the Act, 1982") whereby decree for eviction has been passed against the defendant/petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/opposite party filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 02 of 2007 against the defendant/petitioner under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act, 1982 praying for a decree of eviction of the defendant from a room measuring 36' X 13' situated over plot No. 314, Khata No. 80 of Mouza Durwa, Latehar (hereinafter to be referred as "the suit premises") claiming that the same was constructed by his father and the defendant/petitioner was inducted as tenant in the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.75.00. It was further claimed that the said suit premises was needed by him for running grocery shop. The defendant/petitioner appeared in the said case and filed written statement claiming that Bechu Ram (the father of the plaintiff) and his brother-Chaturgun Sao jointly constructed the suit premises. Bechu Ram died living behind four sons namely Badri Prasad, Kedar Prasad, Haridwari Prasad (plaintiff/opposite party) and Dinesh Prasad whereas Chaturgun Sao died leaving behind four sons namely Naurang Prasad, Rajendra Prasad, Arun Prasad and Vijay Prasad. After death of Bechu Ram, the elder son Badri Prasad being head and Karta of the family inducted the defendant/petitioner as tenant in the said suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.75.00 and also allotted other portion of house to different tenants who were running their respective businesses. It was further claimed that the plaintiff was also running a grocery shop in his own house situated in the heart of Latehar township. The plaintiff and his brothers had houses suitable for running their business and thus there was no bonafide requirement of the said suit premises by the plaintiff. It was also stated that Partition Suit No. 01 of 1999 was filed by Naurang Prasad and Others against Badri Prasad and Others wherein separate Takhta for the said suit premises was prepared in favour of Naurang Prasad and others. Moreover, the defendant had refused to pay rent to the plaintiff as it was being paid to Badri Prasad. Finally, the trial court decreed the eviction suit in favour of the plaintiff/opposite party vide judgment dtd. 28/1/2010 (decree signed on 9/2/2010) with a direction to the defendant/petitioner to vacate the premises in question within three months from the date of decree and to give vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/opposite party. Aggrieved with the said order, the defendant/petitioner filed the present Civil Revision under Sec. 14(8) of the Act, 1982. In the meantime, the plaintiff/opposite party filed Execution Case No. 01 of 2010 and thus the defendant/petitioner filed interlocutory application being I.A No. 1434 of 2011 for staying the further proceeding of the said execution case. This court, vide order dtd. 11/11/2011, allowed the said interlocutory application staying further proceeding of the said execution case. It is also submitted that the executing court, vide order dtd. 1/4/2021, vacated the order of stay granted by this court relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Asain Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the said suit premises has been constructed by the father of the plaintiff/opposite party and the opposite party has become the exclusive owner of the said suit premises after partition took place among the brothers. It is an admitted fact that the elder brother of the plaintiff had inducted the defendant as tenant who was Karta of the family. The plaintiff had however bonafide requirement of the said suit premises for business purpose of his sons and the said claim of the plaintiff has rightly been decided in his favour. Thus, the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court may not be interfered by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. It is also submitted that no other person has come forward to claim the ownership of the said suit premises and mere filing of Partition Suit No. 01 of 1999 does not confer any right to the defendant to question title of the plaintiff over the suit premises.