Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 72 (PAT)

Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Shambhu Sharan Lal

2012-01-13

V.NATH

body2012
JUDGMENT V. Nath, J.—Heard Mr. R.S.Pradhan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. J.S.Arora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. 1. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2008 passed by Munsif I, Darbhanga in Eviction Suit No. 12/97 under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)Control Act, 1982(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff has filed the Eviction Suit No.12/97 with the assertion that he is the owner of the suit premises and which is the only house owned by him for the purpose of his residence alongwith his family. He has further stated that his two sons have now become major and therefore he requires the entire suit premises for the purpose of residence of his family and partial eviction will not satisfy his need. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant is the tenant in the suit premises from the year 1993 in one room out of the three rooms of the suit premises but later on he forcibly occupied the entire suit premises and has refused to vacate the same in spite of the request by the plaintiff. 2. The defendant has resisted the prayer of the plaintiff and has disputed the bona fides of the personal requirement of the suit premises of the plaintiff. He has also asserted that the defendant had invested Rs. 42,600/- in restoration of amenities in pursuance to the order dated 31.07.1998 passed by the Rent Controller cum Sub Divisional Magistrate which is yet to be adjusted in the rent. The defendant has also stated that the partial eviction will satisfy the need of the plaintiff. 3. The learned court below after considering the evidence in view of the rival submissions of the parties, has come to the finding that the plaintiff has got no other residential premises except the suit premises. It has further been found that the requirement of the plaintiff of the suit premises for the purpose of residing therein with his family is bona fide and reasonable. It has further been found that the requirement of the plaintiff of the suit premises for the purpose of residing therein with his family is bona fide and reasonable. Learned court below has also considered the issue of partial eviction and has concluded that the suit premises consists of one kitchen, one store room and one latrine besides three rooms and two verandahs and the partial eviction of the defendant from the same will not satisfy the need of the plaintiff as the suit premises which is in one unit cannot be divided in two parts. Consequently, the suit was decreed and order for eviction has been passed. 4. In the present revision application also the plaintiff-petitioner has almost reiterated the same grounds with assertion that the findings recorded by the learned court below are erroneous as there was no material evidence to establish bona fide and reasonableness of the personal necessity of the plaintiff. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the opposite party in this revision application. No rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has been field by the petitioner rebutting the statement of facts made therein. The opposite party in his counter affidavit has stated that he has retired from service in the year 2007 and his need has become more acute for that reason. 6. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned court below has recorded the findings on the basis of the evidence on record and during the course of his submission, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out perversity in those findings. The reappreciation of the evidence, even under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 14(8) of the Act, cannot be ventured in full-fledged manner and that, too, when the findings recorded by the court below could not be established to be perverse. The submission on behalf of the petitioner regarding entitlement for refund of the amount invested towards restoration of amenities before eviction is clearly out of scope of this revision application because no such issue has been framed in the court below nor any evidence has been led in that regard showing specific agreement with the plaintiff to refund the amount before eviction. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the findings recorded by the court below is hereby upheld. The revision application is accordingly, dismissed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the findings recorded by the court below is hereby upheld. The revision application is accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.