Civi Revision No.703 of 2009 Against the Order/Judgment and decree dated 21st of February, 2009, passed by the Munsif II, Begusarai in Eviction Suit No. 12/99 …. RAMAKANT SINGH son of late Jagdish Singh, resident of village Nipaniya Tola Singhpur, Police Station Phulwaria, Pargana: Malki, Sub. Division & Sub.Registry: Teghra, District Begusarai, … …Defendant-Petitioner Versus PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA son of late Ramkhelawan Gupta, resident of village Baro Bazar, Police Station Phulwaria, Pargana: Malki, Sub. Division & Sub.Registry: Teghra, District Begusarai, … …Plaintiff-Opposite Party For the Petitioner: Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate For the Opp.Party: Mr. M/s RajivRanjan Sinha and Sushil Kumar, Advocates. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN ----------- Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J. This civil revision filed under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1982(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) is directed against the order/judgment and decree dated 21st February, 2009, passed by the Munsif II, Begusarai directing the defendant-petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises within sixty days to the plaintiff, otherwise the plaintiff would be at liberty to get the premises vacated by due process of law. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party instituted Eviction Suit No. 12 of 1999 for eviction of the defendant- petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal 2 requirement of the suit premises. The claim of the plaintiff, as set up in the plaint, is that the suit premises, which is land and house standing over the same as described in Schedule I of the plaint, was acquired by his father through a sale deed. After the death of his father there was partition in the family in the year 1990 upon which the suit property came in the share of the plaintiff and accordingly, he came in possession of the same. On the basis of a deed executed on 13.02.1991, the plaintiff inducted the defendant as a tenant in the premises for the purpose of opening a shop. However, subsequently, the petitioner started feeling personal requirement of the premises for business purpose as he wanted to open his own shop for maintaining his family. In the year 1996 the plaintiff requested the defendant to look for some other alternative and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. However, the defendant took it otherwise and stopped payment of rent. Subsequently, the defendant sent the rent by Money Order on 2-3 occasions, but the plaintiff returned the same on the pretext that he wants vacant possession of the shop in question. In the meantime, certain disputes arose and the defendant moved before this Court by filing a writ petition and also an application before the Rent Controller, Begusarai, Teghara. On 10.08.1998 and 16.09.1998 the plaintiff served legal notice, however, the 3 suit premises was not vacated. Thereafter lastly, when on 20.10.1999 the defendant refused to vacate the premises, the present eviction suit was filed. 3. The defendant filed written statement. Though he had admitted that he had taken the suit premises on rent and also a “Kirayanama” was executed, but he had denied that the plaintiff had any personal necessity of the rented premises. In fact, it was alleged that he only wanted enhancement of rent at the rate double the existing one. When the defendant did not yield to the plaintiff for enhancement of the rent to the aforesaid extent, the present suit has been filed. It has been claimed in the written statement that the plaintiff possesses several shops at Baro Bazar as well as at Barauni, Lalit Narain Mishra Railway Market. That apart, it has been alleged that the plaintiff has a big residential building at Baro Bazar and has also a big commercial plot in front of Baro Post Office. It has further been alleged that apart from the rented shop in occupation of the defendant, the plaintiff possesses three other shops, which are vacant. The defendant further stated in the written statement that rent up to March 1998 was handed over to the plaintiff, but later on, the plaintiff deliberately refused to accept the rent and forced the defendant to pay the same through Money Order, however, the plaintiff intentionally refused to accept the 4 same. It has also been stated that the plaintiff had forcibly locked the door of the rented shop on 10.09.1999, as a result of which the shop remained closed up to 14.03.2000 and in Cr.W.J.C. No. 410 of 1999 filed by the defendant against such action of the plaintiff, the High Court while disposing of the writ petition observed that the defendant should not be evicted without following the procedure of law. Thereafter the shop was unlocked on 15.03.2000. 4. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff, whereas on behalf of the defendant twelve witnesses were examined. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence recorded the finding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and also that the plaintiff had bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises. It has also been held by the court below that no useful purpose would be served by partial eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that the averment in the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff had got the suit premises in partition creates a doubt regarding his title. Whether the suit premises belongs to the plaintiff or his brothers is doubtful. 5 However, this issue has been dealt with in detail in paragraph 7 of the order/judgment under challenge. The court below has discussed in detail and held that since in the written statement as well as in the evidence led on behalf of the defendant he himself accepted to be the tenant of the plaintiff the doubt being created at the time of argument would be of no help to the defendant- petitioner and, thus, it had been held that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner could not point out any illegality in such finding. 7. Learned counsel contended that the plaintiff is not in personal need of the suit premises, as he is having other shops, residential house as well as commercial plot also. It is further contended that the plaintiff is also having a shop in the name and style of "Prem Shankar Sweets" near Barauni Railway Station and apart from that, the plaintiff had himself admitted that he has also another premises, in which he had inducted tenant, namely, "Kaushal". However, on scrutiny of the evidence led on behalf of the parties the court concerned has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid shop in the name and style of "Prem Shankar Sweets" was in the name of the father of the plaintiff, however, after his death, the brother of the plaintiff is running the shop. It has come in the evidence of the defendant also that the 6 brother and son of the plaintiff are sitting in that shop. That apart, it has been noted by the court below that no suggestion had been given to the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff regarding the factum of any other shop being run by the plaintiff or the plaintiff is being engaged in any other employment. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party submitted that from the evidence of the defendant itself, it would be clear that the plaintiff's shop was being run by the brother and that was in the premises not owned by the family, rather the same had been settled by the Railways. On appreciation of evidence, it has been held by the court below that the defendant could not make out a case that the shop aforesaid belongs to the plaintiff himself. Even if the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff is having another premises rented out to some other person is taken to be true, it is well settled that the plaintiff has a right to choose one of them to satisfy his requirement. The defendant was not able to show that any other similar type of premises having similar area and other amenities and facility belonging to the plaintiff was vacant which could have satisfied the bona fide need of the plaintiff; whereas the plaintiff has specifically stated that he is not having any other suitable premises or shop. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed 7 reliance upon a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in Deena Nath Prasad v. Smt. Roopa Devi, reported in 2010(1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 434. However, the aforesaid decision would be of no help to the petitioner, as he could not show that any vacant premises having similar area and condition belonging to the plaintiff was available for the required business of the plaintiff. That apart, learned counsel could not point out any illegality in the finding recorded by the court below holding that the plaintiff bona fide requires the suit premises for his own purpose. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the need or requirement of the plaintiff could have been fulfilled or satisfied by eviction of the defendant partially from one room in place of the entire premises having two rooms. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the court below in paragraph 13 of the order/judgment and it has been held that though there are two rooms, but ingress of the shop is from one side only, meaning thereby that if somebody wants to go in the second room he will have to go from the first shop itself as there is no other passage or way to approach the second room. It has been further observed that if some separate passage is provided for approach to the second room then the width of both the rooms/shops would become 4-5 ft. rendering them unviable for any purpose. 8 Thus, it has been held that no purpose would be served from partial eviction of the suit premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in the aforesaid finding of the court below. 11. Thus, upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record of the case, this Court finds no illegality in the order/judgment under challenge warranting interference in its revisional jurisdiction. 12.As a result, this Civil Revision as well as I.A. No. 5728 of 2009 are dismissed. The interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. However, there would be no order as to costs. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Patna High Court, The 21st day of July, 2010. SC / NAFR