Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 492 (JHR)

Ajay Yadav v. Rajendra Sao

2010-04-19

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.-The petitioner/defendant has filed this revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as B.B.C. Act) against the judgment dated 6th May, 2009, passed by the Sub-Judge-VI, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 18A1 2003 by which the Decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises has been passed by the Trial Court. 2. The said Eviction Suit was instituted by the Plaintiff on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. According to the Plaintiff, the Schedule-A premises was initially let out to the grandfather of the Defendant who started business over the said property. After death of his father, the Defendant stepped into the shoes of his father as a tenant. Further, according to the Plaintiff, out of his six sons, two sons were employed but the remaining sons were unemployed and, therefore, the Plaintiff required the suit premises for the purpose of their self-employment. Even a Panchayati was held and in the •said Panchayati, the father of the Defendant had agreed to vacate the suit premises but after his death, the sons i.e. the Defendants, refused to vacate the same. 3. The Defendants, by filing written statements in the Court below, contested the suit by contending that the B.B.C. Act was not applicable in the case since the father of the Plaintiff had let out a "Parti' land to the grandfather of the Defendant and in a case of "Parti" land, B.B.C. Act does not apply. Further, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. A building was constructed by the grandfather of the Defendant and the Plaintiff did not have any personal necessity since his sons were already employed. The Defendant's father never agreed to vacate the suit premises. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the patties, five Issues were framed by the Trial Court out of which, Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are most relevant, which are as under- "3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get a Decree for eviction of the Plaintiff from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide personal necessity and whether, its partial eviction would suffice its purpose? 4. Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties?" 5. Both the parties led their evidence in support of their cases. 4. Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties?" 5. Both the parties led their evidence in support of their cases. The Trial Court, by the impugned Judgment, after considering the pleadings, the evidence and arguments of both the parties, came to the following findings: - (i) There was a relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties; (ii) The suit premises was bona fidely required by the Plaintiff; (iii) Partial eviction would not suffice the need of the landlord. 6. It is against this impugned Judgment and Decree, the Defendant has filed this revision application. 7. The main contention of the petitioner that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the 'Parti' land was let out to the grandfather of the Defendant and he constructed a building over the vacant land and, therefore, the suit for eviction filed by the Plaintiff was not maintainable under the B.B.C. Act. According to the petitioner, the findings of the Trial Court in this regard are totally erroneous. In this regard, he relied on a decision in the case of Yamuna Prasad Singh and Others vs. Birendra Kumar Singh @ Ram Singar Singh and Others and other analogous cases reported in 1993(2) PUR 396. ' 8. It was next contended that the findings regarding the personal bona fide necessity of the son of the Plaintiff was erroneous and perverse and the Trial Court, without any discussions and without as-signing any reason, has held that the partial eviction would not suffice the purpose of the Plaintiff. 9. From perusal of Ext.-A i.e. the Sale Deed dated 27.12.1949, it appears that the suit property was purchased by the mother of the Plaintiff by a registered Deed of Sale in the year 1949 and as per the evidence of P.W. 1, after the purchase of the land by his mother, a structure was constructed over the said land having two rooms in which the grand-father of the Defendant was inducted as a tenant. D.W.1 as well as D.Ws. 2 and 3, in their cross examination, have admitted that the disputed premises was a Hotel i.e. a building within the meaning of B.B.C. Act. These witnesses have also admitted in cross- examination that the Defendant paid rent to the Plaintiff in respect of the disputed premises. D.W.1 as well as D.Ws. 2 and 3, in their cross examination, have admitted that the disputed premises was a Hotel i.e. a building within the meaning of B.B.C. Act. These witnesses have also admitted in cross- examination that the Defendant paid rent to the Plaintiff in respect of the disputed premises. Therefore, from the evidence, there is no doubt that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the suit premises, which comprises two rooms and therefore, the suit under the B.B.C. Act was maintainable. 10. Since I have already held in the foregoing paragraphs that the suit under B.B.C. Act was maintainable because two rooms were let out to the grandfather of the Defendant and as such, the decision cited by the Defendant/Petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Now coming to the question as to whether the Plaintiff required the suit premises bona fidely for his personal necessity. I find that the learned Court below, on consideration of evidence and materials on record, has come to the findings that the Plaintiff was able to prove that out of this six sons, four were unemployed and were sitting idle and the suit premises was adequately located for starting business for his unemployed sons. 12. So far as the last question as to 'whether the partial eviction would suffice the need of the Plaintiff?' I find from the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court that he also gave the finding that the partial eviction will not serve need of the Plaintiff, is based on the materials and evidence on record. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I do not find any error of any kind in the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and, accordingly, having found no merits,' this Revision Application is dismissed.