ARBIND KUMAR SINHA Vs. RASHMI SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 17/9/2019 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge - VI, Patna in Title Appeal No. 59 / 2000 whereby and whereunder the Judgment and Decree dtd. 19/4/2000 dismissing Eviction Suit No. 4/1 of 1995/ 1999 by the court of learned Munsif-II, Patna has been reversed by allowing the said appeal.

(2.) The Appellant-tenant was defendant and Respondents were plaintiffs in the trial court. The case of plaintiffs in the trial court is that plaintiff No. 1 is the owner and landlady of the shop in holding No. 169/98, Circle No. 20/B and Ward No. 18 situated in Panki Kothi, Nala Road, Patna in which the defendant was inducted as tenant on monthly rent of Rs.965.00 and the tenancy was month to month. The tenant-defendant is running the business of furniture shop since 12 years and the said shop is in front of Nala Road and the area is famous for furniture business. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No. 1's husband is unemployed graduate and he has desired to start furniture business in the said shop for his livelihood. They have no other shop or house in Patna to start business. It is further case of plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs have conveyed his personal necessity to the defendant who assured the plaintiffs that he would vacate the suit shop within two or three months but he did not vacate the same. Hence, the suit for eviction filed on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiffs stating that need of plaintiffs is reasonable and bonafide.

(3.) Appellant contested the suit, inter alia, contending that neither the plaintiffs are the landlords nor the plaintiff No. 2 is unemployed and story of the personal necessity for starting furniture business in the suit shop is false and concocted and the plaintiffs did not require the suit shop reasonably and good faith hence the plaintiffs have no occasion to file the suit. It is also stated that the description of the premises under the tenancy of the defendant has been wrongly given in Schedule - 1 of the plaint. In the petition for grant of leave to contest the suit it is stated that defendant is tenant of one Mahesh Prasad Singh who got filed the suit malafide to apply undue pressure on the defendant to enhance the rent and to extract a heavy amount of 'Pagri' and enhance rent from the defendant or from any new person by inducting in place of the defendant.