Tarun Kumar Gupta vs Parwati Devi

Gurusharan Sharma, J.—This Revision application arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1999 passed by Munsif, Sadar, Motihari in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1996, whereby Petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the suit shop to opposite party.

Admittedly, Petitioner was a tenant in the suit shop, described in Schedule I of the plaint and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

The Plaintiff filed the suit u/s 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for eviction of Defendant on the ground of personal necessity.

According to Plaintiff, her eldest son, Manoj Kumar was unemployed and wanted to start cloth business, for which suit shop was most suitable.

Defendant appeared in the suit, filed written statement and contested it He denied Plaintiff''s claim of personal necessity and asserted that Plaintiff''s son, Manoj Kumar was still minor and so there was no question of either his being unemployed or to start any cloth business in the suit shop.

Defendant''s further case was that Plaintiff has got three storeyed market complex. She was residing with family on second floor. First floor has been let out to a Bank. On the ground floor there were 23 shop Katras, out of which 13 were (sic) vacant and, therefore, her son could staff cloth business in one of those vacant shops.

Manoj Kumar, eldest son of Plaintiff was examined as P.W.3. He disclosed his age to be 20 years. The Court also assessed his age at 20 years. P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 & 6 supported majority of Manoj Kumar and claim of personal necessity. I find that on the basis of evidence trial court rightly came to conclusion that Manoj Kumar was not minor rather he was major and was able to start his cloth business.

In respect of Defendant''s assertion that there was (sic) eight (sic) vacant shop rooms available to the Plaintiff for her son''s business, Plaintiff adduced oral evidence that on account of death of her husband construction of those shops could not be completed for the last ten years.

A perusal of lower court records reveals that trial court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who made local inspection of the market complex in question 4.11.1998 in presence of both parties and submitted his report (Ext.A). The said Commissioner was also examined as D.W.8. No objection was raised by either party to the. said report. In Ext.A four rooms were found vacant, but their conviction was not complete, floor was not plastered and shelters (sic) were also not fixed. Defendant in his evidence as D.W.7 admitted that those shops were in the Same position since last ten years. It can''t be said that Plaintiff has purposely not completed construction of those shops for such a long time only for obtaining an eviction decree against the Petitioner.

In such a situation, I find that Plaintiff''s requirement was reasonable and bonafide and no suitable shop room was available in the said market complex for starting cloth shop by Manoj Kumar.

Trial court also considered question of partial eviction of the Petitioner. Admittedly dimension of suit shop was 10 ft � 20 ft. Plaintiff, while being examined as P.W. stated categorically that her requirement would not be satisfied by par (sic) eviction of the Defendant. On the other hand there was no evidence adduced by Defendant in this regard. Therefore, in my opinion by partial eviction of Pendant-Petitioner Plaintiff''s requirement could not have been satisfied.

I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and eviction decree.

In the result, this Revision application is dismissed. However, there will no order as to costs.