Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 657 (JHR)

Misrilal Rabidas v. Dewanti Devi

2001-09-12

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. On 20.1.1994, opposite party No. 1 purchased house property, bearing Holding No. 770 standing over plot Nos. 66 and 67 situated within ward No. 3 (new) of Giridih Municipality. Defendants were living therein as tenants from before. Thereafter they attorned the plaintiff as their landlady and paid rent to her. 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed Eviction Suit No. 12 of 1994, under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of petitioner and his brother, opposite party No. 2 herein on the ground of personal requirement under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Opposite Party No. 1 pleaded requirement of suit premises for starting business by two of her elder sons, who were respectively 24 and 22 years old and were sitting idle. 4. The petitioner denied her claim of personal requirement and pleaded that she also possessed other premises in the town situated at Agarghat as well as near Moti Cinema Hall wherein her sons may start alleged business. 5. In order to establish aforesaid fact petitioner brought on record Ext, D. extract of Municipal register relating to the holding recorded in the name of opposite party No. 1, near Moti Cinema Hall, but while deposing as DW 3. admitted the fact that said promises was not situated on the main road and was actually in a lane and so it was not fit for the purpose for which she required the suit premises. Admittedly suit premises was situated at first class business place in the town of Giridih. 6. House situated at Agar Ghat was also a residential one and was not fit for business purpose. The opposite party No. 1 had, therefore, no suitable accommodation except the suit premises for establishing the sons in business. 7. Defendants failed to prove that aforesaid two sons of apposite party No. 1 were already employed. Her requirement was not merely a desire to evict the petitioner, but was genuinen and as such it was rightly held that opposite party No. 1 established her bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit shop and petitioner was directed to be evicted under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Her requirement was not merely a desire to evict the petitioner, but was genuinen and as such it was rightly held that opposite party No. 1 established her bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit shop and petitioner was directed to be evicted under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Trial Court also considered question of partial eviction and found that dimension of shop was 10 x 18 only and it could not have been bifurcated into two parts, in order to satisfy requirement of opposite party No. 1, who was plaintiff in suit and rightly held that her requirement cant be satisfied by partial eviction of the petitioner. 9. In this circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/ order. 10. In the result, this Revision application is dismissed, but without costs (sic) the lower Court records be sent down. 11. Revision dismissed.