CIVIL REVISION No.586 OF 2005 Against judgment and order dated 28.2.2005, passed by Shri Suresh Kumar Singh, Munsif III, Patna, in Eviction Suit No.42 of 2002. ******** 1. KANCHAN PRASAD @ GUDDAR , son of Late Yamuna Sao 2. Sanjiv Kumar @ Guddu Prasad son of Sri Kanchan Prasad @ Guddar - Both residents of Mohalla Bhikhana Pahari, Back of Salimar Hotel, Police Station Pirbahore, PO Bankipur, District Patna …..Defendants - Petitioners Versus 1. URMILA SINGH wife of Shri Shreekrishna Singh 2. Smt. Prabha Singh wife of Sri Kaushal Kishore Singh - Both residents of Mohalla Bhikhana Pahari, Police Station Kadamkuan, PO Bankipur, District Patna …..Plaintiffs – Opp. Parties ********** For the Petitioners : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate *********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR S K Katriar, J. The defendants of Eviction Suit no.42 of 2002 (Smt. Urmila Singh v Smt. Prabha Singh), have filed this civil revision application under the provisions of section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, and challenges the judgment dated 28.2.2005, passed by the learned Munsif III, Patna, whereby the eviction suit has been decreed on the ground of personal necessity of plaintiff no.2 (Smt. Prabha Singh). 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this revision application may be indicated. The plaintiffs claim to be the owner of the house and the defendants are tenants in a portion of the same. The suit was instituted for eviction of the defendants from the premises in question on the ground of personal necessity. According to the plaint, plaintiff no.2 (Smt. Prabha Singh), and her husband (not a party to the suit), are unemployed. She has acquired qualification in tailoring and 2 wants to set up a tailoring shop in the premises in question where she would be helped by her husband. It is further stated in the plaint that the family is living in the rear portion of the house, and it will be convenient for them to set up a shop there. On the other hand, the defendants stated in their written statement that the plaintiffs do not need bonafide the premises in question for their personal need, and the suit has been instituted only to drive away the defendants. The suit on contest has been decreed and it has been held that plaintiff no.2 as well as her husband are unemployed. Plaintiff no.2 has acquired qualification in tailoring and she wants to set up a tailoring shop in the premises in question, and she needs the same bonafide for her personal need. This will provide her with the source of livelihood. The learned trial court also found that partial eviction of the suit will not serve the purpose of the plaintiffs. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants (petitioners) has submitted before me that plaintiff no.2 has joined Buxar Civil Court as class III employee in February 2005, and is currently attached to the Family Court, Buxar. He, therefore, submits that personal necessity of the plaintiffs have come to an end during the pendency of this proceeding and, therefore, the civil revision application may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside. He submits that the Court should, in the interest of justice, take into account the pendente lite developments. He has relied on the following reported judgments:- (i) P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor General Trades AIR 1975 SC 1409 (Para -4) (ii) Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram AIR 1992 SC 700 3 He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath (AIR 1981 SC 1711) (Paragraphs 12 and 14), wherein, it is submitted, it has been laid down that the plaintiffs have acquired another premises during the pendency of the proceeding and, therefore, eviction suit should fail on that ground. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents) submits that it is correct to state that plaintiff no.2 has become a class III employee of the Bihar Government and is now attached to the establishment of the learned Family Court, Buxar. He, however, submits that the needs of the plaintiffs have to be adjudged as on the date of the institution of the suit. He also submits that the husband of plaintiff no.2 has, during the pendency of the proceeding, been enrolled as a lawyer and has set up practice in Patna. The premises in question is now needed to set up a lawyer’s chamber. Therefore, the impugned judgment may be upheld on the ground of another personal need which has occurred during the pendency of the proceeding. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram (AIR 1992 SC 700). 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Pendente Lite developments surely give rise to an interesting state of affairs. On the one hand, the defendants’ case is that plaintiff no. 2 has joined government service, whereas the plaintiffs assert that the husband of plaintiff no.2 has become a lawyer and needs the premises for his legal practice. Learned counsel for the defendants is right in his submission that the Court should take into account Pendente Lite developments to ensure complete justice to the parties and to avoid 4 multiplicity of litigations. The difficulty, however, before us is that such was not the case of the parties set up in their pleadings before the learned trial court. We are further of the view that refusal to take notice of the Pendente Lite developments may result in failure of justice. In that view of the matter, I hereby set aside the impugned judgment dated 28.2.2005, passed in Eviction Suit no.42 of 2002, by learned Munsif III, Patna. The matter goes back to the learned trial court where the parties shall be free to seek amendment of their respective pleadings for a fresh decision in accordance with law taking into account the Pendente Lite developments. 6. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned trial court with the aforesaid direction. In view of the position that it is a suit based on personal necessity, having been instituted way back in 2002, the learned trial court is expected to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar ) Patna High Court, Patna The 4th of August 2010 NAFR/mrl