RAMENDRA KISHOR AGARWAL Vs. REKHA JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The instant civil revision is directed against judgment and decree dtd. 24/8/2011 (decree singed on 3/9/2011) passed by the Court of Sub-Judge-V, Hazaribagh in Eviction Suit No.11 of 1998 whereby and whereunder, the suit filed under Sec. 11(1)(c) and (e) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as 'The Act of 1982') has been decreed in favour of plaintiff and the defendant/petitioners have been directed to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of order and to handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff, failing which, the plaintiff shall be entitled to evict the defendant from the suit premises through the process of the Court.

(3.) Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that plaintiff purchased the suit property by registered sale deed No. 11835 dtd. 13/14/12/1994 from Sri Krishnan Jaiswal, Advocate, Hazaribagh, thereby acquired absolute ownership, right, title, interest and possession over the property. It is further alleged that before purchase of the suit property including the premises, the defendant was an existing tenant under the vendor of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.28.00 payable according to the English calendar month and had paid rent until December 1994. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant was duly informed and acknowledged the change of ownership, thereby recognizing the plaintiff as his landlady, but failed to pay rent from January 1995 onward, thus becoming a defaulter. The plaintiff further claims bona fide personal necessity for the suit premises, stating the property is century-old, built with mud walls and local tiles, lacks basic amenities such as urinal and latrine and is in a dilapidated and unsafe condition, requiring complete reconstruction, which is not feasible without eviction. It is further alleged that the defendant has a separate residential house and is not residing in the said suit premises and initially sought time till 31/3/1995 to vacate, which was granted, followed by another extension till 30/6/1995 on compassionate grounds. However, the defendant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent from January 1995. Hence, the suit was filed under Ss. 11(1)(c) and (e) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.