21IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.58 of 2011 Kailash Rai , son of Late Ram Baran Rai, resident of village Hasanpur Surat(Patori), P.S. Patori, Dist.-Samastipur Versus 1. Vimla Maheshwari , wife of Ashok Kumar Maheshwari 2. Santa Khatol wife of Sri Anil Kumar Khatol, both are residents of village Hasanpur Surat(Patori), P.S. Patori, Dist.Samastipur ---------------------------------- 6 21- 11-11 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 11-2-2011 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division-1, Samastipur in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2007 passing an order of eviction against the defendant-petitioner under section 14 of the Bihar Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction)Control Act, 1982. The plaintiffs have filed the Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2007 seeking the eviction of the defendant-tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiffs‟ case, in short, is that the suit premises originally belonged to Badri Prasad Maheshwari and he had inducted the defendant as tenant in the suit premises. The plaintiffs purchased the suit premises, keeping in view its commercial viability for starting a business. The plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, by sale deed dated 17-12-2002 purchased the suit premises and thereafter their names have also been mutated in the Anchal. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant as per the direction of their vendor(original owner) continued to pay the rent to the plaintiffs, but later on he refused 2 to vacate the suit premises on the request of the plaintiffs.It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant had purchased adjacent southern portion of the suit premises belonging to the vendor of the plaintiff, namely, Badri Prasad Maheshwari. The plaintiffs have asserted that plaintiff no.2, who is the husband of plaintiff no.1, is a handicapped person and she wants to establish him in business, as there is no source of income and the suit premises is the most suitable place for the said purpose. The consistent refusal by the defendant-tenant to vacate the premises has led the plaintiffs to file the eviction suit. Rebutting the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and has asserted that the story of personal necessity, as pleaded by the plaintiffs, is false because the husband of plaintiff no.1 is already established in business and carrying on his commercial ventures. It has been further case of the defendant that he had been tenant in the suit premises till 1-11-1998 and thereafter has been remaining in possession of the same in part performance of the agreement for sale with the original owner Badri Prasad Maheshwari and has also claimed to have made full payment of consideration money, but has alleged that the original owner Badri Prasad Maheshwari had fraudulently executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs instead of executing it in his favour. The learned court below after considering the evidence on record, as led by the parties, has found that in the sale deed(Ext.1/b) of the defendant with regard to the adjacent land of 3 the suit premises, the name of plaintiff no.1, Vimla Maheshwari, has been mentioned. It has been further found that the defendant had filed T.S.No. 115 of 2007 for specific performance of contract against his vendor, Badri Prasad Maheshwari, impleading the plaintiffs of the present suit also as defendants and the said suit has been dismissed on 2-2-2010 and no step for its restoration has been taken by the defendant. The trial court has also found that the defendant has admitted himself to be the tenant of the original owner, Badri Prasad Maheshwari, till 1-11-1998 and after the dismissal of T.S.No. 115 of 2007 his status has remained as a tenant in the suit premises and has found the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiffs and the defendant. On the basis of evidence the trial court has also found the bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit premises and on the basis of these findings the order for eviction has been passed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has not considered the evidence properly and has wrongly recorded the findings against him. It has been contended that the defendant is in possession of the suit premises on the basis of the agreement for sale and not as a tenant. It has been further urged that the finding of personal necessity is not sustainable as the court had not considered the reasonableness of the need of the plaintiffs and reliance has been placed on a decision, reported in 2004(4) P.L.J.R. 843. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 opposite parties has submitted that admittedly the defendant was the tenant of the original owner and after the purchase of the suit premises by the plaintiffs he became their tenant which fact has been correctly found by the trial court on the basis of evidence on record. It has been further submitted that in his own sale deed of adjacent land the defendant has accepted the title of plaintiff no.1 by accepting her in the boundary. The learned counsel has thus contended that the finding of facts recorded by the trial court is based upon appreciation of evidence and there is no scope for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. After hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the impugned order it appears that the defendant has accepted himself to be the tenant in the suit premises till 1-11- 1998, but his claim to be in possession of the suit premises in part performance of the agreement for sale now cannot be believed in view of the dismissal of T.S.No 115 of 2007 filed by him in which the present plaintiffs were also the defendants. It has been accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said suit, which had been dismissed for default by order dated 2-2-2010 has not been restored and no step for its restoration has been taken by the petitioner uptill now. In view of this fact, it emerges that the claim of the defendant to be in possession over the suit premises in his own right has not got no basis. As such, the learned court below has rightly held that the defendant is still a tenant in the suit premises and the plaintiffs, who have purchased the suit premises from his(defendant) landlord have now become 5 his landlord and there is relationship of landlord and tenant in between them. It further appears from the impugned order that the finding of bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiffs has been recorded by the learned court below after considering the evidence and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the said finding is perverse. It is well-settled that the scope of appreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is limited and, thus, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reappraisal of the finding of personal necessity. With regard to the submission that no finding has been recorded regarding partial eviction, it is relevant to take notice that the defendant has not admitted himself to be the tenant and has not pleaded or led any evidence to the effect that the partial eviction from the suit premises will satisfy his need. In M/S Bata India Ltd. Vs. Dr. Md.Qamruzzama, reported in 1993(1) P.L.J.R. 87 a Bench of this Court held as follows: The expression „and the tenant agrees to such occupation‟ strengthens the view that while holding enquiry on the “question of partial eviction it is the tenant who has to express his readiness and willingness for part occupation of a premises and to show that the plaintiff‟s need can be substantially satisfied by evicting him from only part of the premises and allowing him to continue in occupation of the rest of it.” On behalf of the petitioner it could not be shown that there is any evidence showing the readiness and willingness of the defendant to the partial eviction from the 6 suit premises. As such, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel in this regard. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)