Ramrup Sao vs Sharo Devi

Gurusharan Snarma, J.—Plaintiff filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 29 of 1993. u/s 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rant & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for defendant''s eviction from the suit premises, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint on the ground ''of reasonable and bona fide requirement in good faith for starting business by her younger son, Ashok Kumar Sao. Her elder son, Krishan Kumar Sao, after death of his father was engaged in foodgrains business of the family.

Defendant contested the suit and denied plaintiffs alleged requirement for the suit premises. According to him, Ashok Kumar Sao was not unemployed and even if she required a suitable promises for him to start grocery shop, other suitable accommodation for the purpose, lying vacant could have been utilised for the said purpose.

In course on hearing of the suit DW 1 in his examination-in-chief, admitted that there was no other shop available for the plaintiffs son to start a new business. DW 4 on the other hand, deposed to the effect that plaintiff possessed a number of buildings including three at Chirkunda. In order to reconcile aforesaid contradiction in the statement of two witnesses examined on behalf of defendant, no documentary evidence was brought on record to prove that actually three other buildings, suitable for the purpose, were available to the plaintiff at Chirkunda.

In the aforesaid circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court that plaintiff required the suit shop reasonably and in good faith for her son, Ashok Kumar Sao.

I also find that while considering question of partial eviction, trial Court found that suit shop consisted a front room and another room connected therewith on its back and, therefore, for business purpose it was not possible to bifurcate it into two parts. Back portion could not have been utilised by either party unless front portion was bifurcated in two parts, which was not possible. Finding on partial eviction also needs no interference by this Court.

I find no merit in this Revision application. It is, accordingly, dismissed, without any costs. Lower Court records may be sent down.

Revision dismissed.