Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1264 (PAT)

Dilip Khatri v. Amar Nath

2014-12-19

V.NATH

body2014
V. NATH, J.:–Heard Mr Tilak Sao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr S.S.Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The present revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, assailing the judgment and order of eviction passed in Eviction Suit No.08/09 on 25.07.2014. The relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant is not disputed. The defendant-petitioner is carrying on his shop of goldsmith in the suit premises. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity which has been described by the plaintiff as the need for a godown for keeping the goods required for his shop which is on the opposite side of the road. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he has taken a godown on rent in view of his dire necessity. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff firstly on the ground that the plaintiff has got sufficient space in his own house in which his shop is also running, to establish the godown. It is also the case of the defendant that the need of the plaintiff is not reasonable and bonafide. The defendant has further contested the claim of the plaintiff also on the ground that the suit shop is suitable for a goldsmith and not for other purposes. 3. Both sides led their evidence according to their pleadings. After scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned court below has returned the finding that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing the personal necessity as pleaded for the suit premises. The defendant’s claim for refund of the amount of rent deposited in pursuance to the order of this Court passed in CWJC No.14030/10 has also been negatived. 4. Mr Tilak Sao, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the learned court below has acted with material irregularity in ignoring as well as misconstruing the evidence on record and the impugned judgment has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It has been canvassed that the evidence on record clearly reflect the existence of the suitable space/premises with the plaintiff for establishing the godown as claimed and this fact alone shows that the claim of the plaintiff was not bonafide. It has been canvassed that the evidence on record clearly reflect the existence of the suitable space/premises with the plaintiff for establishing the godown as claimed and this fact alone shows that the claim of the plaintiff was not bonafide. The learned counsel has further submitted that though the defendant deposited the amount of three years rent as directed by this Court in the writ application but the learned court below has erroneously failed to pass a direction for refund of the said amount as the defendant had already paid the rent for that period. 5. Mr S.S.Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel for the opposite parties, however, has contested the submissions and assertions on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the impugned judgment and order suffers from no illegality or material irregularity as the same has been rendered on the basis of appraisal of evidence. It has also been submitted that this Court in its limited jurisdiction under Section 14(8) of the B.B.C.Act has only to see whether the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and not to venture on reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of reversing the findings of fact. 6. In view of the admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, the only sole issue was the existence of reasonable bonafide personal necessity. The plaintiff has claimed the suit premises for establishing a godown for keeping the goods of his shop which is situated across the road. The defendant has resisted the said claim on the ground that the plaintiff has sufficient space in his premises for establishing the said godown. The evidence however is on record that plaintiff has taken a godown on rent in order to meet his necessity. The Explanation-II in Section 11 (C) of the B.B.C.Act clarifies the position that the tenant is not entitled to question the choice of the plaintiff on the ground of availability of other premises to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant’s claim of that the plaintiff has further premises available for establishing godown, even if proved could not by itself be sufficient to deny the relief of eviction on the ground of personal necessity. 7. Therefore, the defendant’s claim of that the plaintiff has further premises available for establishing godown, even if proved could not by itself be sufficient to deny the relief of eviction on the ground of personal necessity. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled for refund of the amount which he had paid in pursuance to the direction of this Court has also got no substance in view of the finding by the court below that such payment as claimed by the defendant has not been proved on the basis of evidence on record. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not place any material to substantiate this claim. In this view of the matter, this Court is not persuaded to take the view that the finding in this regard is perverse. 8. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned court below has taken into consideration the evidence led by the parties, and thereafter, has based its findings on the analysis of evidence. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner to establish that the impugned judgment and order are not in accordance with law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this revision application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ?