SAIBAL MUKHERJEE Vs. CHHOTELAL RADHESHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge -FTC -III, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 155 of 2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Additional Munsif - II, Dhanbad in Title (E) Suit No. 16 of 1987.

(2.) THIS suit was filed by the plaintiffs -respondents against the defendants -appellants under Section 11 (1) (c) and (f) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, on the grounds that the suit premises is required for business, and it is also necessary to repair/demolish the building as per the direction of Dhanbad Municipality.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent -landlord could not prove personal necessity as they did not say as to what business they propose to do. He further submitted that no finding has been given on the question of partial eviction. He further submitted that the evidence of both the experts were discarded by the trial court, but even then it was held that the building was in pitiable condition. He further submitted that the appellate court has wrongly affirmed such finding without going into the evidence in detail.