IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.1075 of 2003 ================================================= 1.Ramdeo Pd.Singh @ Ramdeo Awadh, Son of Gopal Awadhia. 2.Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Awadhia, Son of Ramdeo Pd.Singh @ Ramdeo Awadhia. Both resident of village-Khem Matihania, P.S. Bishwambharpur, District-Gopalganj at present resident of village- Banjari, P.S.&District- Gopalganj. -Defendants/Petitioners. Versus Satyendra Pati Tiwari, Son of Sharda Pati Tiwari, Resident of Tiwari Belwa, P.S.-Kateya, District-Gopalganj. --Plaintiff/Opp.Party. Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. RAGHAV PRASAD Mr. Maheshwar Prasad =============================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYENDRA NATH V.Nath ,J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. No one has appeared on behalf of the opp.party. 1. It appears that several times notices had been sent to the opposite party and ultimately by order dated 19.12.2010 the service of notice on him on refusal has been accepted as deemed service. Patna High Court C.R. No.1075 of 2003 dt.18-11-2011 2 2. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 13.05.2003 passed by Munsif, Gopalganj in Eviction Suit No.08/2001 by which an order of eviction has been passed against the defendant/petitioner. 3. The Eviction Suit No. 08/01 ha been filed by the opposite party as landlord against the petitioners for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity alone. The learned court below has in the impugned order held that no leave under Section 14(4) of the Bihar Building(Lease Rent and Eviction)Control Act, 1982(in short the Act) has been obtained by the defendant (tenant) by filing an affidavit in that regard and as such the written statement filed by the defendant cannot be accepted. Thereafter, the learned court below straightway has proceeded to pass the order of eviction against the defendants. 4. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that although the suit was for eviction on the ground of personal necessity but the learned court below has not recorded any finding on the existence of bona fide and reasonable personal necessity to the Patna High Court C.R. No.1075 of 2003 dt.18-11-2011 3 plaintiff and has also not recorded any finding as to whether the partial eviction of the defendant could have satisfied the need of the plaintiff or not. It also does not appear from the impugned order that the plaintiff has led any evidence in support of the facts regarding the personal necessity as pleaded by him. It is well settled that even if the defendant tenant fails to obtain the leave under Section 14(4) of the Act the decree for eviction can only be passed by recording the finding of personal necessity and as well as the finding regarding the partial eviction as mandatorily required under the proviso to Section 11(c) of the said Act. The learned counsel has rightly placed reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in (Abhimanyu Prasad Sah Vs. Murlidhar Bhawsinghka)1998(1)PLJR 186 wherein the legal position has been explained as follows: “I am inclined to think that even where the tenant has failed to apply for leave or leave is refused, notwithstanding the language of sub-section (4), this would not entitle the landlord to an order of eviction straightway. Pleadings are not evidence. And the Court is required to satisfy itself that the ground of eviction is made out, especially where the eviction Patna High Court C.R. No.1075 of 2003 dt.18-11-2011 4 is sought on the ground of personal necessity. The Court has to see if the ground is reasonable and bonafide, the question of partial eviction has also to be considered…” 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that there is also denial of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and has pointed out that a T.S.No. 243/01 has been filed by the petitioners for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession which is pending before Sub Judge III,Gopalganj. It has also been submitted that the plaintiff/opposite party has already sold away the suit premises. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and law it is held that the learned court below has committed illegality and error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, which is accordingly, set aside and the revision application is allowed. Patna High Court, The 18th of November, 2011. N.A.F.R./Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)