URMILA DEVI Vs. GAYATRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenant's civil revision filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBC Act' or 'the said Act' for short) against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2002 passed by the Munsif, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 25/92, whereby the learned Munsif has decreed the landlord's suit for eviction sought on the ground of their personal necessity.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case was, that they are the owners of the house standing over Holding No. 6, Thakurbari Shop Area, Sakchi, town Jamsedpur, consisting of four shop rooms on the ground floor. The defendant was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs in one shop room as a monthly tenant, on monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - plus electric charges. The defendant was carrying on business of Electronics and other allied goods. Two shop rooms are in occupation of other tenants, namely, Himmat Singh and Jadunath Pathak and the rest one shop room is in occupation of the plaintiff No. 2 who is running business of TV and other Electronics goods. The plaintiffs averred that they belong to a trading family and earn their livelihood by carrying on their business. The plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of the plaintiff Nos. 2 -5 and they are living jointly in a portion of first floor of the building. The plaintiff Nos. 3 and 5 have not been able to engage themselves in business due to want of accommodation. The wife of the plaintiff No. 4 has taken a shop on rent at Sakchi Market and is running business there. The plaintiff No. 3 Umesh Chaudhary required the said premises for his business of courier services and courier parcels and he has got fund for the said business.

(3.) BOTH the parties led evidences, documentary as well as oral, in support of their respective claims. The learned trial Court framed several issues. Issue No. 3 is regarding the personal necessity of the plaintiffs, as to whether the plaintiffs' need is bona fide and reasonable. The same issue also included the issue as to whether partial eviction is a practicable solution. The learned trial Court also framed an issue as to whether the plaintiff is a landlord within the meaning of Section 11(1)(c) of BB (L, R and E), Control Act, 1982, as issue No. 6. After thorough appraisal and consideration of the evidences on record and after considering the factual and legal aspects, the trial Court decided both the issue Nos. 3 and 6, in favour of the plaintiff (landlord) and held that the plaintiffs required suit premises reasonably and in good faith for the purpose of business of the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 5 and that partial eviction will not satisfy the need of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court decided other relevant issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit.