MUNNI DEVI GUPTA Vs. OM PRAKASH AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 19-2- 2009 passed by learned Additional Munsif - I, Dhanbad in Eviction Suit No. 58 of 1998 decreeing the suit of eviction filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlords') for eviction of defendant-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenants') on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) THE case of the landlords inter alia is that plaintiff No. 1 is Hindu Undivided Family (H.U.F.) represented through its karta and manager (Late) Om Prakash Agarwala and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are members of H.U.F. The original tenant was inducted in the suit premises measuring an area of 8 x 12 on 1-5-1964 on a monthly rental of Rs. 125/- under a lease for a period of 10 years i.e. upto 31-3-1974. Since, he did not vacate the suit premises after expiry of the lease period, a notice was given to him to vacate on the ground of personal necessity of second son Pradip. However, due to intervention of well-wishers and friends, he was allowed to continue till 1-8-2001 on the agreed terms under a lease agreement dated 14-9-1991, but he filed a suit (Title Suit No. 28 of 1992) alleging that he signed on enhanced rent due to pressure, which has been dismissed up to appellate stage holding that he agreed for payment of the rent at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month and there was no coercion. Further case of the landlords is that Pawan requires the suit premises for doing independent business as all the three brothers are engaged in business in one small shop. The suit premises is situated in Sonapatti, which is a business area and is adjacent to the shop of the landlords and is most suitable for opening a new shop. But, in spite of the request, tenants did not vacate the suit premises.

(3.) THE trial Court framed 10 issues. The parties led documentary and oral evidences. There is no dispute with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant. The trial Court inter alia found that the tenant lost the said suit - Title Suit No. 28 of 1992 up to appellate stage in which it was held that he signed the agreement dated 14-9-1991 without any coercion and agreed for enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month. Issue No. 7 regarding personal necessity and issue No. 8 regarding partial eviction were taken up together by the trial Court. After considering the respective cases and the evidences of the parties and the judgments relied by them, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. It is inter alia held that the landlord were doing business of waste newspapers in one shop and the earning from such business is not sufficient for their livelihood, and therefore, Pawan wants to do independent business in the suit shop which is most suitable to him. The trial Court considered Explanation II to Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act, which reads as follows :-