CIVIL REVISION No.973 OF 2004 ----------- Against the judgment dated 25.5.2004, passed by the Subordinate Judge III, East Champaran, Motihari in Eviction Suit No.12 of 1998/2 of 2004. ------------ Prakash Kumar Chaurasia, son of Sri Yadunath Chaurasia, resident of Village-Bashmanpur, P.S. Motihari, Muffassil and District Champaran presently residing at Mohalla Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Chatauni, P.O. Motihari, District-East Champaran ----- Defendant --- Petitioner. Versus Arya Samaj through Binod Kumar Arya’, Secretary Arya Samaj at Mohalla Bhawanipur Zirat, P.C. Chhatauni, P.S. Motihari, District-East Champaran ----- Plaintiff ---- Opposite Party. ------------ For the Petitioner- Mr. Jashwir Singh Arora, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Mr. D.K. Tondon, Advocate. ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR S.K.Katriar,J. The defendant has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and is directed against the judgment dated 25.4.2004, passed by the learned Sub- ordinate Judge III, East Champaran (Motihari), in Eviction Suit No. 12 of 1998/ 2 of 2004 (Arya Samaj Vs. Prakash Kumar Chaurasiya), whereby the suit for eviction on the ground of expiry of the period of lease has been decreed, and the defendant (petitioner herein) has been directed to vacate the premises. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint. 2 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. The plaintiff (opposite party herein) is a religious sect of Hindu and owns immovable property in the township of Motihari, wherein is situate its temple for worship of Hindus. It has also set up a few shops to let out to various tenants to meet its financial requirements. The plaintiff let out one such shop to the defendant by unregistered lease dated 6.3.1997 (Ext.1), letting out the shop in question for the period 16.3.1997 to 31.1.1998. After expiry of the period of lease, the defendant did not vacate the premises leading to the suit on the grounds of personal necessity as well as expiry of the period of lease. 3. The defendant entered appearance, filed his written statement, and contested the suit. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial court rejected the plaintiff’s case for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. It, however, decreed the suit on the ground of expiry of the period of lease. Hence this civil revision application. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have advanced elaborate submissions in support of their respective stand. After arguments at length, learned counsel for the defendant submits that he is prepared to vacate the premises voluntarily if a reasonable time is given to him to make alternative arrangement and vacate the premises in question. Learned 3 counsel for the plaintiff has no objection to the same. In that view of the matter, as prayed for by learned counsel for the defendant, he is permitted to continue in the suit premises for a period of one year from today, and shall vacate the premises voluntarily, without the necessity of eviction proceedings, on or before 30.9.2011. It goes without saying that the defendant shall pay rent of the premises in question directly to the plaintiff by 15th of the current month. The defendant shall be liable to contempt proceeding for his failure to carry out the terms of the order. It will be open to the defendant to approach the plaintiff for a fresh tenancy if any shop becomes vacant in future. 5. This civil revision application is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. High Court Patna, Dated 11th October,2010 Vinay/ N.A.F.R. ( S. K. Katriar,J. )