Anand Kothari, son of Late Surendra Singh Kothari, resident of Tikla Tola, Kanke Raod v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 56 of 2015 Anand Kothari, son of Late Surendra Singh Kothari, resident of Tikla Tola, Kanke Raod, P.S.- Gonda, P.O.-Ranchi University, District- Ranchi. Versus …. Petitioner 1. Ram Narayan Singh, son of Late Shital Singh 2. Maheshwari Devi, wife of Chandradeo Narayan Singh, both resident of Shital Niwas, Kanke Road, P.S- Gonda, P.O.- Kanke, District- Ranchi. ------ …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents ------ : Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, Advocate : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate 16 / 14.06.2024 Heard the parties. ----- 2. This revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2015 and decree signed on 9.7.2015 passed by the learned Munsif, Civil Court, Ranchi, in Eviction Suit No. 24 of 2006, filed by the plaintiffs- opposite party under Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity, whereby the suit was decreed
Legal Reasoning
on contest, directing the defendant-petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs within the period of two months from the date of Decree. 3. The brief facts which led to filing of Eviction Suit No. 24 of 2006 by the plaintiff-respondents are that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit premises situated at M.S. Plot No. 754 & 755, Radium Road, Ranchi. The father of the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit premises in the year 1974 on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. Rent was enhanced from time to time. Since plaintiff no.1 who is residing in America wants to reside at Ranchi permanently, he requested the defendant to vacate the house premises and it was agreed between the parties that by 21.05.2005, the suit premises will be vacated. The plaintiff no.1 came from America in the month of May, 2006 and again requested to vacate the premises for his personal requirement, but no heed was paid on his request and hence, the eviction suit was filed. 1 4. The defendant-petitioner appeared in the eviction suit and filed his written statement. It was stated that there was no bonafide requirement of the plaintiff of the suit property for personal accommodation, as the plaintiffs have two accommodations in the city of Ranchi. It was also stated that the suit property does not belo to the plaintiffs, as the plaintiff no.2 has executed a deed of gift on 3.2.2006 in favour of one Rajiv Ranjan. It was also stated in the written statement that the father of the defendant was inducted as tenant and after his death on 17.10.1974, the defendant along with his brother became the joint tenant in the suit premises and they paid rent to the landlord. It was also stated that on the request of plaintiff no.1, the defendant agreed to vacate the part portion of the suit premises, if the plaintiff no.1 has withdrawn the citizenship of America. Since the plaintiff no.1 has two accommodations with ownership in Ranchi city, there was no personal need of the plaintiff to reside in the suit premises only. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has also been questioned by the defendant. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court has framed several issues including the issue of personal need of plaintiffs of the entire suit premises or partial accommodation and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. After discussing each and every issue, the learned Court passed the order impugned in favour of the plaintiff, which is under challenge in the present civil revision. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Assailing the impugned order, Mr. S.N. Das Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner argues that the learned Court has failed to decide the question of bona fide need and wrongly held in favour of the plaintiffs that suit premises was required in "good faith". Learned counsel submits that for a decree of eviction on the ground of personal necessity, there must be an element of ‘need’, but in the present case, there is no need of the plaintiffs for residing in the suit premises only, as there are two accommodations available with the plaintiffs in the city of Ranchi. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs have mere desire and wish of the suit property to be vacated at the ends of the defendant-petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that even if, there is wish and desire of the plaintiffs of the suit premises for accommodation, the 2 partial eviction of the defendants is sufficient, but this aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the learned Court while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff no.1 has no right, title and interest of the entire suit property and as such, he cannot even maintain a suit for eviction, especially on the ground of personal necessity. Learned counsel further submits that no provision enshrined in the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 is attracted in the present suit, so as to evict the defendants from the suit premises.
Decision
Hence, the impugned order is fit to be rejected. 7. Per contra, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, and the suit premises is the genuine requirement of the plaintiffs for residing therein. Demonstrating the factual expositions, learned counsel submits that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs through registered sale deed on 18.2.1963. The father of the plaintiff constructed a double storied building, consisting of five rooms and the father of the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit premises. Rent was being realized by the nephew of the plaintiff no.1 on his behalf. Learned counsel submits that since the plaintiff no.1 is residing in America and now he decided to come back in India at Ranchi, he requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises, for which a written assurance was also given to the plaintiffs on 21.5.2005. So far as right, title and interest over the property in question is concerned, learned counsel submits that half of the share belonging to plaintiff no.2 has been gifted to her adopted son, Rajiv Ranjan, who later on sold it to Sandip Kumar and thereafter, said Sandip Kumar sold the property in favour of plaintiff no. 1 (Ram Narayan Singh). Hence, the plaintiff no.1 has the full right, title and interest over the entire suit property. Learned counsel further submits that the suit premises is in dire need of the plaintiff no.1 for residing, as there is no other accommodation available for the plaintiffs, except the suit premises. Replying the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sinha submits that though there are two accommodations available with the plaintiff in the city of Ranchi, but the fact is that another accommodation, which is situated at Kanke Road is occupied by the brother of the plaintiff as 3 per their mutual family arrangement. Learned counsel also submits that partial eviction of the suit property is not suited for the plaintiffs, as the requirement or the necessity differs according to the status of the person and it varies from man to man. Learned counsel submits that there is relationship between the parties as ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ and as such, the suit property is in personal need of the plaintiffs within the meaning of Section 14 of the said Act. As such, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that eviction suit on the ground of personal need is sustainable only when the landlord is able to substantiate and satisfy the court that the building in question, in occupation of the tenant is bonafidely required for his own use and the eviction suit has been instituted in good faith. The landlord can succeed to oust the tenant from the suit premises only when he is able to establish his need by means of convincing evidence. The landlord though has an uphill task but the tenant also cannot be allowed to deprive the landlord of his rightful claim. 9. To elucidate the aforesaid legal issues, this Court has gone into the entire records. For just decision of the case, the learned Court has framed six issues, including the issues as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whether the plaintiff has personal necessity to reside in the suit premises in good faith and whether partial eviction of the suit will fulfil the requirement of the plaintiffs. 10. P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff No.1 (Ram Narayan Singh) and plaintiff no.2 (Maheshwari Devi), who are related as brother-in-law (Debar) and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) respectively. A double-storied building was constructed on the suit land by the father of the plaintiff no.1 and the entire suit property was given to the father of the defendant as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- in the year 1974. Thereafter the amount of rent was enhanced from time to time and it was realised by the plaintiff no.2 (Maheshwari Devi) and his son (Rajiv Ranjan). This fact of tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant was admitted by all the witnesses, including the defendant-witnesses in their examination-in-chief. However, it has also 4 come in the evidence that the brother of defendant, namely, Ajit Kothari has given rent to the plaintiff no. 1 separately, but in support of the said evidence, no document was brought on record by the defendants and therefore, this evidence does not inspire confidence. From the evidences discussed in the impugned order, it is apparent that there is relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. 11. Further to establish the fact that the suit property is in dire need of the plaintiff in good faith, the evidences of the witnesses are taken to be consideration. P.W.4 has stated that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff and it is good for residential and commercial purposes. P.W.3, who is plaintiff no.1, has stated that he wants to permanently settle in the Ranchi after returning from America. In para-9, he has stated that the house situated at Kanke Road, Ranchi is not suitable for two families, as his brother’s family was already residing there. In para-11, the plaintiff no.1 has stated that since he is in need of suit property for residing and there is no other option other than the suit property, he requested the defendant to vacate the suit property and a written assurance was also given by the defendant in presence of advocate to vacate the premises, but he had not done so. Defendant’s witness has stated that since the plaintiff no.1 has become the citizen of America, he could not come to India. However, no document to this effect has been brought on record by the defendant. From the evidences discussed above, it is evident that there is personal necessity of the plaintiff no.1 to reside in the suit property and the need of the plaintiff no.1 is in good faith. It has also come in the evidence that partial eviction of the tenant will not fulfil the personal necessity of the plaintiff, as the suit premises is having an area of two kathas, five chhatank and five sq. feet and for residing the plaintiffs, the entire suit property is the requirement. It is well settled that requirement or the necessity of the person differs from man to man according to their status. Since the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property and he wants to reside in the suit property after returning from America, the partial eviction of the suit property does not fulfil the need of the plaintiff. 12. From the evidences discussed above, it can safely be stated that the need of the plaintiffs-opposite parties as pleaded and proved by them is 5 undoubtedly natural, sincere and honest and hence it is their fide need. The petitioner cannot compel the opposite parties to reside with the alternate accommodation, which was already occupied by his family members. On the point of alternate accommodation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 222 has thus observed:- “Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the Court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the Court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come.” 13. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhupender Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi, reported in AIR 2016 SC 5258 has held that once the personal necessity is established by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be dictated by the tenant as to from which accommodation, he would reside. It is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for residing and the same cannot be dictated by the tenant. Further in the case of Akhileshwar Kumar & Ors. Vs. Mustaqim & Ors, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 462, The Hon’ble Apex Court held that alternative accommodations cannot be thrust by the Court. The choice has to be exercised by the landlord, though reasonably and not whimsically. 14. From the ratios laid down as above, it can safely be stated that the alternate accommodation available with the plaintiff is of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the opposite party has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the respondent, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit premises wherefrom the opposite party is seeking eviction of the petitioner. 6 15. Moreso, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78 that the High Court has limited revisional power to interfere with the orders passed under the Rent Control Act, as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. The relevant paragraph-43 reads thus:- “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 first appellate court/first appellate authority because on the reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different 5 from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 16. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court evicting the petitioner from the suit premises due to the bona fide requirement of the opposite parties for residing in the suit premises. Therefore, the finding of the learned court below is hereby affirmed and this civil revision is fit to be dismissed. 17. This civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed. RC/R.Kr. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 7