MANISH KUMAR AGARWALLA Vs. CHARITAR PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Opp. party.

(2.) The instant Civil Revision is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 2/6/2012 (decree singed on 14/6/2012) passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2004 by Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff/opp. party was decreed and the petitioner/defendant has been ordered to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of order, failing which, the plaintiff shall obtain the possession through process of court along with the cost of the suit.

(3.) Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiff/opp. party has instituted a Title Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2004 seeking a decree for eviction of the defendant from the tenanted suit premises. The case of the plaintiff is that he is owner of the shops situated in Khata No. 13, Plot No. 99 (old) of Mouza Shyamdih, P.S. Katras, Dist.-Dhanbad and inducted the defendant as a tenant on the basis of rent note dtd. 1/12/1998 fixing monthly rent of Rs.1500.00. The plaintiff carries workshop of Automobiles and the above shops are situated just beside his workshop. It is further alleged that since the workshop business of the plaintiff has expanded in the course of time, hence plaintiff requires the suit premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation to extend his own business. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dtd. 25/11/2000 to the defendant with respect to vacate the suit premises but no reply was sent. The defendant is not acceding to any oral request of the plaintiff and ultimately, flatly denied to vacate the suit premises on 5/3/2004, which furnished the cause of action for the suit. Accordingly, title suit No. 07 of 2004 was instituted but the defendant did not appear to contest and the suit proceeded ex-parte vide order dtd. 16/7/2004. The defendant later on appeared on 6/8/2004 and requested before the learned trial Court to accept his written submission and leave to contest which was dismissed vide order dtd. 7/10/2005. The defendant challenged the aforesaid order by filing W.P.(C) No. 35 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 7/3/2006. Thereafter, the defendant filed civil review No. 47 of 2006 which was also dismissed on 15/1/2010. It is also pleaded that since the suit against the defendant proceeded ex-parte, hence the plaintiff filed a petition under Sec. 14(4) requesting eviction of tenant/defendant who has not filed any objection/written statement but the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 23/3/2006, then plaintiff against said dismissal filed W.P. (C) No. 3466 of 2006 which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 13/6/2009 with direction that "it is well settled that even for passing ex- parte decree of eviction on the ground for personal necessity the Court has to be satisfied that the personal ground exist and a decree for partial eviction will satisfy the requirement or not."