IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.584 of 2005 MOSTT.MANJU DEVI Versus RAM KISHUN PRASAD & ORS ----------- 16 12/12/2008 Heard counsel for the parties. The defendant-tenant pitted against the judgment and decree of eviction in a suit filed under section 11 of the Bihar Building Control Act, has basically urged only two points as against the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs-opposite parties were not the landlord rather sister Raj Kumari Devi was a land lady (landlord) and therefore they have no right to file a suit for eviction and that too on the ground of their personal necessity. The aforesaid submission is devoid of any merit for the reasons that it was specific case of the plaintiff that the suit property was a joint family property in which they had been given defined share under registered deed of partition dated 2.7.1996. The plaintiffs, in fact, in paragraph 5 of the plaint has made it clear that as he was stationed at Indaur in connection with his employment, the 2 rent was being received by the sister Raj Kumari Devi and after her death by his elder sister who was residing in the town. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner had filed her written statement she too did not dispute this clear averment made in the plaint, rather her only limited case was that the plaintiff-opposite party will not be deemed to be landlord because he was not receiving the rent. As a matter of fact, paragraph 2 of the plaint which had set out the claim of title of the plaintiff-opposite party on the strength of registered deed of partition dated 2.7.1986, was sought to be denied by the defendant-petitioner in his written statement only to the extent that though there was such registered deed of partition in existence but the same had never been acted upon. In this background if one examines the findings recorded in paragraph nos. 12, 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment it would absolutely become clear that there was no doubt that the plaintiff-opposite party was the landlord of the premises in 3 question specially when he had his right flowing from registered deed of partition of the joint family property. The definition of the expression “Landlord” under the Act is also exhaustive and would definitely include the plaintiff-opposite party, in as much as, section 2 ( f ) of the Act defines the landlord also to mean a person who is entitled to receive rent if the buildings were let out to a tenant. There is no denial to this effect that Raj Kumari Devi was receiving rent and after her death the elder sister was receiving rent who were none-else but the members of the same family. In that view of the matter the challenge of the petitioner with regard to the plaintiff being not a landlord in presence of his sisters only because they were receiving payment of rent on behalf of the petitioner stationed at Indaur is wholly misconceived and has been rightly rejected by the court below in the impugned judgment. Second and last submission on the question of personal necessity also in a way was dependent on the aforementioned 4 stand of the tenant-petitioner, in as much as, it was argued that since the premises belongs to Raj Kumari Devi the same could not have been directed to be evicted for personal necessity of the petitioner. As indicated above, the plaintiff-opposite party in this regard in paragraph 5 of the plaint had set out his case at great length, in which he had taken a plea that he had no other house except, the said premises and in which he intended to settle after leaving his job at Indore as a private teacher. This aspect of the matter that after returning from Indore the plaintiff-opposite party he would start his own business was also categorically asserted in paragraph 5 of the plaint and has also been reiterated in his evidence in paragraph 8 read with paragraph 17. Thus both the deposition of the plaintiff-opposite party and his stand in the plaint are quite consistent and nothing could be elicited to discredit or impeach such version of the plaintiff- opposite party on the issue. The findings recorded by the court below on the issue 5 of personal necessity are unexceptional and would require no interference by this court. That being so, there is no force in either of the two points which were only pressed by the learned counsel while assailing the impugned judgment. Accordingly this Civil Revision Application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar