Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 706 (JHR)

Chittaranjan Ghosh v. Bhimen Das Tirthani

2006-06-15

N.N.TIWARI

body2006
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. This civil revision has been preferred by the tenant-petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2005 passed by learned Subordinate Judge 1st, Pakur in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 36 of 2003 whereby the landlord- plaintiffs suit has been decreed against the defendant-tenant with the direction to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of the decree. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that he is the owner of the suit premises and the defendant-tenant was inducted as a monthly tenant in outer room which has been fully described in schedule B to the plaint, on execution of an agreement. Earlier the tenancy was for the fixed period, but the defendant was allowed to remain in the suit premises till 30th June, 2003; thereafter, he was served with a notice asking him to vacate the suit premises as the plaintiff required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. It has been stated that the plaintiff requires the premises to start a hardware-sanitary equipment business for his elder son for which the suit premises is the suitable place in the market. The defendant, inspite of request, did not vacate the suit premises, hence the suit. 3. The defendant appeared and obtained leave of the Court to contest the suit, as required under the provision of Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act"). The defendant filed his written statement, stating, interalia that the suit was deliberately filed though the plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit. The alleged requirement is not bona fide. The son for whom the plaintiff made a ground of necessity has been already running and managing his business of hotel in the name and style of Ambar Guest House. The plaintiff is a moneyed man and has got various business. The defendant has, thus, denied the plaintiffs claim and contested the suit. 4. Several issues were framed by learned Court below. Both the parties led evidences. On thorough consideration of oral and documentary evidences and other materials on record, learned Court below decided the contested issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 5. The defendant has, thus, denied the plaintiffs claim and contested the suit. 4. Several issues were framed by learned Court below. Both the parties led evidences. On thorough consideration of oral and documentary evidences and other materials on record, learned Court below decided the contested issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 5. In this revision the impugned judgment and decree has been assailed only on the ground that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidences and materials on record and has come to an erroneous conclusion. 6. The opposite party also appeared in this case and made his submissions. 7. On 18.5.2005, after hearing the parties and perusing the records when I found that the judgment and decree of learned Court below is based on thorough discussion and appreciation of evidences and materials on record and there is no error or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Court below and was about to dictate the order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not challenge the impugned judgment and decree, and the petitioner would vacate the suit premises on his own if a reasonable time is allowed to the petitioner to search out a suitable accommodation. It was submitted that the premises is a restaurant and the same is the source of livelihood of the petitioner and his family members and that he will shift the said business to some other place as soon as suitable building is found. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner shall file an affidavit giving clear undertaking that he will vacate the suit premises latest by 31st October, 2006. Considering his prayer, this Court allowed the petitioner to file his undertaking. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 12.6.2006 giving his undertaking that he will vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-opposite party latest by 31st October, 2006 and go on paying rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month by depositing the same in Execution Case No. 27 of 2003 in the Court below. He has further undertaken that he will not put any hindrance while handing over peaceful possession to the opposite party or would not sublet or handover occupancy of the premises to any person except to the plaintiff-opposite party. 8. 500/- per month by depositing the same in Execution Case No. 27 of 2003 in the Court below. He has further undertaken that he will not put any hindrance while handing over peaceful possession to the opposite party or would not sublet or handover occupancy of the premises to any person except to the plaintiff-opposite party. 8. In view of the undertaking, the petitioner is allowed time for vacating the said premises till 31st October, 2006. The petitioner shall deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the opposite party on or before 31st October, 2006 and shall not create any obstruction or impediment thereafter in peaceful possession of the suit premises by the opposite party. The petitioner shall go on paying the current rent of the premises at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month by 7th of each month in advance till the date of handing over the vacant possession to the opposite party. 9. This civil revision is dismissed with the said observation and direction. It is made that any violation of the terms of undertaking would amount to violation of the order of this Court and the opposite party, in that event, will be at liberty to file an application for appropriate action against the petitioner.