Govind Lal v. Kamal Kumar

Patna High Court C.R. No.27 of 2022(11) dt.16-03-2023 being mandatory under Section 11(1)(c) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. Consequently, the said Eviction Suit was remanded to the learned court below to frame an issue with respect to partial eviction of suit premises and grant opportunity to both the parties of leading evidence on the issue of partial eviction and decide the same within six months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order passed by this Court.

In compliance of the order dated 26.07.2019 passed in Civil Revision No. 57 of 2018, the learned trial court has framed an issue with regard to partial eviction which is as follows:- “Whether the need and urgent requirement of plaintiff shall be satisfied from partial eviction of the defendant from suit premises?”

On the basis of issue framed by the trial court on the point of partial eviction, the plaintiff re-examined PW-3, PW-11 and PW-12 and adduced evidence on the point of aforesaid issue.

The defendant-petitioner also re-examined DW-5 for the same purpose.

During the course of hearing of the suit, the defendant incorporated a sketch map in his written statement through amendment. Patna High Court C.R. No.27 of 2022(11) dt.16-03-2023

The learned trial court after considering the evidence of plaintiff as well as defendant and materials on record has held that plaintiff had specifically pleaded in paragraph 11 of this plaint that he needed full suit premises and his need shall not be met it out by partial eviction. Testimony of witnesses has supported the claim of plaintiff. It is further held that the defendant did not adduce any material evidence to contradict the same. Map adduced by the defendant is not certified copy and genuineness of it has been disputed by the plaintiff. Learned court below has decreed the suit of eviction and has found that the suit premises is required by the plaintiff-opposite party and he has personal necessity for the same and the requirement of the suit premises cannot be satisfied by partial eviction from the suit premises.

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires from the impugned judgment that the learned court below has recorded the finding on the basis of scrutiny of evidence as led by the parties. So far the question of partial eviction is concerned, it is quite apparent that the plaintiff had pleaded that he had bonafide personal requirement for the entire premises but the defendant challenged the requirement of the plaintiff and pleaded that the same would be satisfied by partial Patna High Court C.R. No.27 of 2022(11) dt.16-03-2023 eviction also. It is a settled law that once personal necessity is proved, the onus shifts on the tenant to prove that partial eviction shall satisfy the personal necessity of the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to prove that partial eviction shall satisfy the personal necessity of the plaintiff.

In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kasthuri Radha Krishnan vs. M. Chinniyan reported in (2016) 3 SCC 296, the revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act is circumscribed by limitation and revisional court is only to see whether order of eviction is according to law or not. Their lordships have observed as follows:- “… So far as the issue pertaining to exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court while hearing revision petition arising out of eviction matter is concerned, it remains no more res integra and stands settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. The Division Bench held in paragraph 43 which reads as follows:- “43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate Patna High Court C.R. No.27 of 2022(11) dt.16-03-2023 authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order of the learned court below on the point of partial eviction does not require any interference by this Court.