Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1165 (JHR)

Puran Chand Bhagat v. Usha Devi

2008-09-29

R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. On 18.9.2008, this Civil Revision Application was heard at length for final disposal. 2. This Civil Revision Application has been filed by the defendant/tenant/petitioner against the judgment dated 14.2.2005, passed by learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Eviction Suit No. 27/2001. The original plaintiff-Ram Das Vishwakarma having died during pendency of this Civil Revision Application, his heirs have been substituted as the opposite parties. The said suit was filed by the original plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of his bona fide personal necessity, under Section 11(1)(c), read with Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1983, (the Act for short). 3. The case of the original plaintiff, in short, was that the petitioner was inducted in the year 1976 for having his godown for a fixed period of 11 months but he became as month to month tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 225/- per month with regard to the schedule premises (15 fts. wide on road, 22 fts. deep and 6 fts. on the rear side). The original plaintiff had limited income from his book shop and therefore he let out one premises of 10x10 sq. ft. to one Mr. Rizwan Hoda for a period of 5 years. The original plaintiff had four unmarried daughters to support, maintain and educate; among whom, two were of marriageable age-Sandhya and Sobha, who received training in cutting clothes and in teaching children respectively. In order to utilize their education and for their self employment, the suit premises was required. 4. Since in the rear and eastern side of the suit premises the original plaintiff had his own residence, therefore the suit premises was most suitable for the purpose of his daughters. Thus, in substance the original plaintiff claimed bona fide personal necessity for his growing daughters, in paragraph 6 of the plaint. In paragraph 7 thereof, he said that except the suit premises, he does not have any other premises suitable for his use. The dispute with regard to default was not required to be gone into in this suit filed for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. 5. In paragraph 7 thereof, he said that except the suit premises, he does not have any other premises suitable for his use. The dispute with regard to default was not required to be gone into in this suit filed for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. 5. The petitioner denied the personal necessity and said that the original plaintiff is in occupation of four vacant shop premises since last 3 to 4 years and still they were vacant, out of which two shop premises were vacated by the petitioner 3 to 4 years back on the request of the original plaintiff. His further case was that the original plaintiff wanted to evict him to get Pagri and enhanced rent. He further said that the suit premises were not suitable for the purposes of the original plaintiff. 6. The original plaintiff adduced oral as well as documentary evidences, whereas the petitioner adduced oral evidences. P.W-1 Ram Das Vishwakarma was the original plaintiff. P.W-2 is his daughter Sobha, P.W-3 is his other daughter-Sandhya, P.W.-4, 5 and 6 are other witnesses. D.W-4 is the petitioner. D.W. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are other witnesses. 7. The trial court after considering the materials on record found as follows: The admitted facts of this case are as such. a) The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. b) It is also an admitted fact that the defendant is a month to month tenant for the suit premises. c) Although it is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant is defaulter but the ground for the default in payment of monthly rent has not been taken in the instant suit. d) It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff has no male issue and he has been blessed with six daughters out of which three have been married. e) The plaintiff himself running a book shop in the premises which is part & parcel of same plot & holding. f) It is also an admitted fact that one shop premises of this said holding was let out in the year 1998 to one Rizwan Hodda for a monthly rental of Rs. 800/- & still he is in the tenancy. f) It is also an admitted fact that one shop premises of this said holding was let out in the year 1998 to one Rizwan Hodda for a monthly rental of Rs. 800/- & still he is in the tenancy. The trial court found that the landlord has bona fide requirement of the suit premises for the use and occupation of the daughters, for whose interest, the suit premises was held; and the same is suitable for the purposes of the original plaintiff; and that partial eviction will not fulfill his requirement. In the result, the suit was decreed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the suit premises within 90 days. 8. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as the original plaintiff suppressed that he had other vacant shops in his possession, no relief should be granted to him and moreover he inducted Rizwan Hoda as tenant in one of the shops vacated by the petitioner earlier, and therefore his requirement cannot be said to be bona fide, and he cannot be allowed to replace the tenant in the garb of personal necessity. He further submitted that the original plaintiff had no unfettered right of choosing a particular premises when other premises were lying vacant. He relied on [1981]3SCR367 M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors.; (2003)9SCC151 Kishan Chand v. Jagdish Parshad and Ors.; AIR2005SC996 Adil Jamshed Frenchman (dead) By Lrs. v. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and Ors. He also submitted that the finding of the trial court with regard to partial eviction has become irrelevant as during the conciliation proceeding, the landlord had agreed for partial eviction. 9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing for the opposite parties, supported the judgment under revision. He disputed the contentions raised by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan. Referring to the evidence of original plaintiff in paragraphs 32 and 35, he submitted that there were only six rooms, out of which two rooms open towards Tiwary rank Road and out of two rooms, one was maintained by the original plaintiff running a book shop and other shop of only 10'x10' was tenanted to Mr. Hodda. Apart from the suit premises, the three rooms are used for residential purposes. Hodda. Apart from the suit premises, the three rooms are used for residential purposes. He further submitted that the original plaintiff was a retired employee from B.I.T. and it has come in evidence that his financial condition was not good, and therefore only because he let out a 10'x10' shop to Mr. Hoda for augmenting his income, it cannot be said that there was no need of the suit premises. 10. He further submitted that the petitioner tried to create confusion. He further submitted that the petitioner has not brought on the record that any tenant has been inducted in the last ten years, after Mr. Hoda. He pointed out that before the conciliator, the petitioner himself denied that partial eviction will not serve his purpose. He relied on 1982 BLJR 309 ) Tip Top and Ors. v. Smt. Indramani Devi; AIR2003SC156 Savitri Sahay v. Sachidanand Prasad and (2003) SCC 462 Akhileshwar Kumar and Ors. v. Mustaqim and Ors.; AIR2001SC2881 S.R. Babu v. T.K. Vasudevan. 11. The contention of Mr. Rajiv that there was suppression on the part of the original plaintiff, is misconceived. The original plaintiff did not say in paragraph 7 of the plaint that he had no other vacant premises. What he said was that he has got no such other vacant premises which can satisfy his requirement and the suit premises was only suitable for his purposes. Thus, the judgment reported in the case of Kishan Chand (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. Moreover, the facts of the said case are quite different from the present case. Regarding the judgment of Adil Jamshed Frenchman (Dead) (supra); there is no dispute that subsequent events can be taken into consideration but in the present case the original plaintiff had six daughters. Two were married prior to institution of the suit. According to him, he required the suit premises for the use of his family including the remaining four unmarried daughters, out of whom two had taken vocational training to support the family and other two were students in higher classes. Even If the third daughter got married during the pendency of this suit, it cannot be said that the requirement of the opposite parties has vanished. By induction of one tenant, Mr. Even If the third daughter got married during the pendency of this suit, it cannot be said that the requirement of the opposite parties has vanished. By induction of one tenant, Mr. Hoda in one 10'x10' shop, by the original plaintiff, it cannot be said that there was replacement of tenant, and the opposite parties have no bona fide requirement of the suit premises. 12. The judgment of M.M. Quasim (supra) was rendered in connection with the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1947, in which there was no such provision like explanation-II to Section 11(1)(c) in the present BBC Act, 1982, which provides that where there are two or more premises let out by the landlord, it will be for the landlord to chose which one could be preferable to him and the tenant shall not be allowed to question such preference. Moreover, in the present case, the opposite parties fully proved that the suit premises is suitable for their purposes and the other premises lying vacant are not suitable. It has been held in the case of Tip Top (supra) that once the landlord establishes his personal necessity then the law gives him the choice of selection of the accommodation suitable for his purpose, otherwise it would be denying the landlord with that remnant of his right which is the incident of ownership and this could not be the intention of the legislature. 13. I have carefully gone through the entire record. The learned trial court has considered the materials on record in right perspective. I find no error in the findings and reasonings recorded by the trial court. In the result, I hold that the opposite parties have succeeded in proving that they have got bona fide requirement of the suit premises for their own use and the suit premises is most suitable for them and that partial eviction will not satisfy their needs. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is affirmed find this Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Application dismissed.