Civil Revision dismissing the landlord's challenge to an eviction decree. The Court held that the tenant failed to prove partial eviction could meet the landlord's personal necessity, and the landlord has the choice of premises for such necessity.
The civil revision was dismissed as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.100 of 2015
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Late Balmiki Singh Resident of Village+P.O.Hanspur, P.S.-Matihani, District-Begusarai, Presently residing at Khadi Bhandar, Near Teharinath Mandir, within Ward No.-20 Begusarai Nagar Parishad P.S.-Begusarai (Town), District-Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy, Advocate Ms. Anuja Shree Roy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-02-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The defendant of Title Eviction Suit No.23 of 2009, under the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 06.07.1915 whereby the suit brought by the opposite parties on the ground of personal necessity has been decreed.
3. The impugned judgment and decree would
Patna High Court C.R. No.100 of 2015 dt.08-02-2019 2/4
reveal that the Court below found that there is admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The plaintiffs have got bona fide and reasonable personal necessity for the suit premise for the use of unemployed and marriageable sons. The Court below further recorded that partial eviction would not satisfy the requirement of the plaintiffs. The Court below did not accept the argument of the defendant that since the plaintiffs have other suitable premises also under rent to some other person, the defendants, aged about 75 years, should not be asked to vacate the premise on the ground that plaintiffs have choice of selection of the premise to satisfy their need.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has come in the evidence that the same premise contains nine shops and there is no reason or reasonable explanation on behalf of the plaintiffs that why premise under rent of the petitioner should be vacated.
5. The law is well-settled that choice is of the landlord as to which of the rented premise the landlord desires to be used for his personal necessity. The tenant cannot dictate or compel the landlord to shift his choice of premises which is better suited according to the landlord to some other premise.
Patna High Court C.R. No.100 of 2015 dt.08-02-2019 3/4
Therefore, there is no substance in the submission that since landlord has choice of other premises also, he should have opted for some other premise.
6 . So far question of partial eviction is concerned, schedule-1 of the plaint would reveal that the suit premise consists of two brick built rooms inter-connected. One is at the front of the road and another is behind that room. Measurement of the room is not mentioned and the defendant has not stated in his written statement that even partial eviction from the suit premise would fulfill the reasonable need of the plaintiffs.
7. In Hira Lal Das & Anr. V. Loknath Newatia reported in 2014(4) PLJR 476, a Bench of this Court considered identical issue in paragraph-17 of the judgment which reads as follows:
“In the case of Satya Narain Mishra @ Barkuji vs. Sudhanshu Anand & Ors ., reported in 2013(2) P.L.J.R. 491, this Court has held that once the issue of bona fide requirement and personal necessity is drawn in favour of the plaintiff, the onus shifts upon the defendant to prove that the bona fide requirement and personal necessity of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.100 of 2015 dt.08-02-2019 4/4
plaintiff would be satisfied by partial eviction. On failure of the defendant to lead any evidence in this regard, the issue should be decided in favour of the plaintiff. This view has been reiterated by this Court in 2012(3) P.L.J.R. 649 (Hanuman Prasad Gupta vs. Shankar Choudhary ) and 2005(3) P.L.J.R. 719 (Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr.) .”
8. Apparently, in this case, the defendant-petitioner neither pleaded nor led any evidence that there was scope for partial eviction. Hence, this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, cannot interfere.
9. In the result, this civil revision has got no merit and, accordingly, it stands dismissed as devoid of any merit.
(Birendra Kumar, J)
Mkr./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 12.02.2019 |
| Transmission Date | 12.02.2019 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in a Title Eviction Suit decree based on personal necessity under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
Whether the landlord has the right to choose the premises for personal necessity without being compelled to accept alternatives.
Whether the failure of the tenant to lead evidence regarding partial eviction precludes judicial interference under Section 14(8) of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hira Lal Das & Anr. V. Loknath NewatiaReferred¶25
Hira Lal Das & Anr. V. Loknath Newatia reported in 2014(4) PLJR 476
Satya Narain Mishra @ Barkuji vs. Sudhanshu Anand & Ors.Referred¶26
Satya Narain Mishra @ Barkuji vs. Sudhanshu Anand & Ors. reported in 2013(2) P.L.J.R. 491
Hanuman Prasad Gupta vs. Shankar ChoudharyReferred¶28
2012(3) P.L.J.R. 649 (Hanuman Prasad Gupta vs. Shankar Choudhary)
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr.Referred¶28
2005(3) P.L.J.R. 719 (Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Singh
Tara Devi
Vidya Shankar Choudhary
Sri Parashuram Choudhary
Anil Kumar Singh
BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
