Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.204 of 2012 ====================================================== Hriday Narayan Mandal, S/o Late Sardhari Mandal, resident of Jagdishpur, P.S. Jagdishpur, District-Bhagalpur Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. Kedar Nath Bhagat 2. Murlidhar Bhagat Both sons of Sri Baijnath Bhagat, resident of Jagdishpur, P.S. Jagdishpur, District-Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 09. 14-05-2013 I.A. No. 7935 of 2012 This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the Civil Revision application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the application, I am satisfied by the explanation given by the petitioner and the delay is condoned accordingly. I.A. No. 7935 of 2012 stands allowed. C.R. No. 204 of 2012 This Civil Revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2012 passed by learned Munsif-1st , Bhagalpur in Title Eviction Suit No. 5 of
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court C.R. No.204 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 2 1993, whereby the learned Munsif has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and has directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises within a period of three months from the date of judgment, failing which the same shall be vacated through the process of the court. With the consent of the parties this matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. I shall be referring to the party position as it existed before the trial court. The suit in question was filed seeking eviction of the defendant from a plot bearing khesra no. 676 of khata no. 618 admeasuring three decimals which is a shop room situated in village Jagdishpur, District-Bhagalpur set out in schedule-A to the plaint. Whereas it is stated that the plaintiff no. 1 is engaged in taking private tuition at Patna, the plaintiff no. 2 is stated to be engaged in the same vocation at Jagdishpur. On the request of these plaintiffs their father purchased the suit premises which belonged to one Deep Narayan Mistry, having been allotted the same, in a family partition. Under a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1991, the shop in question was sold in favour of the plaintiffs whereafter they became absolute owners of the same. Patna High Court C.R. No.204 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 3 It is not in dispute that the defendant was a tenant under the vendor of the plaintiffs paying rent @ 160 per month but since after the transfer of the property in favour of the plaintiff, he was charged of being a defaulter. As the plaintiffs intended to open a retail business of cloth, they requested the defendant to vacate the same but the defendant in stead instituted a suit bearing Title Suit No. 25 of 1992 seeking to injunct the plaintiff from evicting him without following the due process of law. The suit filed by the defendant was disposed of on the undertaking of the plaintiffs herein that the defendant shall not be evicted without following the due process of law and hence the suit in question. On the basis of the rival pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on grounds of personal necessity with direction to the defendant to vacate the same and hence this Civil Revision.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel has appeared for the defendant who is the petitioner before this Court while the plaintiffs have been represented by Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, Advocate of this Court. As was the contention of the defendant before the court below, objecting to the plea of bona fide requirement raised by the plaintiff for seeking eviction, it was reiterated that the plaintiffs being engaged in multiple business, Patna High Court C.R. No.204 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 4 there in fact existed no bona fide requirement. It was submitted by Mr. Singh with reference to the evidence led by the defendant in the court below that whereas the plaintiff no. 1 is a professor in a college at Patna and is engaged in tuition , the plaintiff no. 2 has several business including a STD shop, a stationary shop, a medical shop as also transport business. It was thus sought to be canvassed that the plaintiff in fact did not have any bona fide requirement rather the suit in question was a pretext for eviction. The argument of Mr. Singh has been contested by Mr. Sinha who submits that except oral evidence led by the defendant, there is nothing on record of the trial court to support the argument of the defendant regarding the plaintiffs being engaged in multiple business. Mr. Sinha submitted that for the purpose of settlement of the sons, their father had purchased the plot in question and which has been denied by the defendants for all the 20 years through which the defendant has kept the plaintiffs engaged in litigation. The present revision application is only an endeavour to delay the enforcement of the decree. With reference to a judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 6 of 1993 it was submitted that since the defendant had also defaulted in making payment of rent, a separate suit was filed by the plaintiffs and which also been decreed in their favour under a judgment and Patna High Court C.R. No.204 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 5 decree dated 30.10.2010, a copy whereof has been enclosed to the supplementary affidavit filed in the present proceedings. Mr. Singh responding to the argument has submitted that the defendant has filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree and which is pending before the appellate court below and in which an order of stay has been passed restraining the eviction of the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. The scope of intervention in a matter arising from a judgment and order passed under the Act is though wider than a revision preferred under the Code of Civil Procedure but is not to be treated as an appeal from a original decree rather this Court merely has to ensure whether the judgment and order passed by the trial court is based upon the evidence adduced by the parties and/or whether or not the judgment and order impugned suffers from any perversity and/or whether the procedure prescribed under the Act, has been followed. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties the trial court had framed eight issues of which the issue no. 4 relatable to landlord and tenant relationship, the issue no. 5 relatable to bona fide requirement and the issue no. 6 relatable to Patna High Court C.R. No.204 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 6 partial eviction are the issues which require to be considered. Insofar as the issue of landlord-tenant relationship is concerned, in view of the registered sale deed dated 16.05.1991, by operation of law, the defendant has come under the tenancy of the plaintiffs and thus he cannot contest this legal position. That would bring this Court to the most important issue and that is the plea of bona fide requirement raised by the plaintiff. Although 15 witnesses were led by the defendants to question the bona fides of the plaintiff to maintain the suit on grounds of personal necessity but the opinion of this Court is that except for oral evidence there is nothing on record to contest the plea led by the plaintiffs. Each of the witnesses led by the defendant merely supported his contention about the plaintiff no. 1 being engaged in taking tuition at Patna and the plaintiff no. 2 being engaged in multiple business. Despite repetition, I would mention that these are only oral evidence and although it is being stated by the defendant that the plaintiff is involved in multiple business, there is not a single chit of paper to support such contention. Thus in absence of there being cogent evidence to support the contest led by the defendant about the plaintiff being engaged in other business and in absence of there being any evidence that there were other options available to the plaintiffs to satisfy their bona fide requirements for the Patna High Court C.R. No.204 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 7 purpose of their own settlement, the findings arrived at by the learned trial court cannot be faulted with. Having held as such, the last of the issue would be the issue of partial eviction and considering the area of the shop, the finding of the trial court that a partial eviction would not have suited either of the parties, again suffers from no infirmity. For the reasons and the conclusions drawn hereinabove, there is no ground for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order impugned which neither suffers from any legal infirmity nor any jurisdictional error. This application is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J)