Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1243 (PAT)

Vinod Kumar v. Pavitri Devi

2003-12-02

NAGENDRA RAI

body2003
Judgment 1. The tenant-petitioner is aggrieved by part of the judgment and decree dated 7.8.2002 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Patna, whereby he has allowed his partial eviction from the suit shop only in terms of the proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Admittedly, the plaintiff-opposite party is the owner of the shop, which is measuring 1214" in width and 78" in length, situated at Ashok Raj Path, which is the main market of the town of Patna. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground that she has four daughters and they are all married, but she requires the suit premises for opening a medical-shop to maintain her youngest daughter and her husband/ The tenant-petitioner admitted the tenancy but challenged the need of the plaintiff-opposite party. 3. Both the parties adduced evidence and after having considered the material on record, the court below came to a definite finding that the suit premises is required by the plaintiff reasonably and bona fide. However, it found that the partial eviction of the tenant-petitioner from half portion of the suit premises will substantially meet the requirement of the plaintiff and, accordingly, decreed the suit for partial eviction and ordered that the eastern half portion of the suit premises would remain in possession of the landlord-plaintiff and the western half thereof would remain in possession of tenant-defendant. It has apportioned the rent also in the sense that the defendant will pay Rs. 2,250/- per month to the plaintiff, which will not include the cost of electricity. 4. The tenant-petitioner has challenged the order for partial eviction. The court below has found that plaintiff-opposite party required the premises reasonably and in good faith. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the said finding is either based on no evidence or contrary to law. 4. The tenant-petitioner has challenged the order for partial eviction. The court below has found that plaintiff-opposite party required the premises reasonably and in good faith. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the said finding is either based on no evidence or contrary to law. So far as the partial eviction is concerned, Proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the Act runs as follows : "(c) where the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord; Provided that where the court thinks that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building and allowing the tenant to continue occupation of the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the court shall pass a decree accordingly, and fix proportionately fair rent for the portion in occupation of the tenant, which portion shall hence forth constitute the building within the meaning of clause (b) of section 2 and the rent so fixed shall be deemed to be the fair rent fixed under section 5." The said proviso provides, inter alia, that the court has to first consider the area of the suit premises and then to determine the requirement of the landlord. This has to be considered on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The court below has also to consider as to whether requirement of the landlord will be substantially (not fully) satisfied or not by partial eviction of the tenant from the suit premises and if there is substantial satisfaction of the need of the landlord then the partial eviction can be ordered. 5 From a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the court below has considered the need of the plaintiff and has also taken note of the hardship of the tenant and after comparative appraisal of the needs of the plaintiff and defendant has come to a definite finding that the partial eviction of the tenant-defendant will substantially satisfy the need of the landlord-plaintiff. 6. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which is based on appreciation of materials on record and, accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.