Abdul Rauf vs Allauddin

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties.

This revision application has been filed by the defendant/tenant against whom, the trial Court passed decree for eviction of the suit premises described in the plaint.

The suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff/ opposite party against the defendant/ petitioner u/s 11(1)(C) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide personal necessity.

The suit premises is one shop measuring 6 feet x 6 feet situated on holding No. 66, Dhatkidih Market, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum which was let out to the defendant on the monthly rent of Rs. 85/- where the defendant was running a Tailoring Shop.

The case of the plaintiff is that he needs the suit premises bonafidely for the personal use as his eldest son - Riyaz Ansari was sitting idle since 2002 after having passed Intermediate (l.Com) Examination. His further case is that his son want to start his business of motor parts but because of the paucity of the space, he is not in a position to start his business and as such, is sitting idle, therefore, prayer was made to evict the defendant from the suit premises on the ground aforesaid.

The defendant denied the need of the plaintiff and contested the claim on the ground that the conduct of the plaintiff was not such so as to show that the suit premises was in fact required bonafidely for the personal use of the plaintiff or his son - Riyaz Ansari.

Both the parties led evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it came to the finding that the plaintiff required the suit premises for the use of his son - Riyaz Ansari so that he could start his business therefore, requirement was bonafide. The Trial Court further held that the Plaintiff had no other place available to him from where his son could start his business. These finding of the Trial Court are based on evidence .

Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any infirmity in the impugned Judgment.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court holding that the Plaintiff required the suit shop reasonably and in good faith for his son - Riyaz Ansari. The Trial Court further considered the question of partial eviction and came to the conclusion that since the area of the suit premises was merely 6 Feet x 6 Feet, and as such, the partial eviction from the suit premises would not be sufficient to fulfill the need of the Plaintiff.

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this revision application. Consequently, having found no merit, this civil revision is dismissed.