MD. EHSAM RASUL Vs. MUNNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT <DJG>V.NATH,J.</DJG> 1.Heard Mr. K.N. Choubey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

(2.) This revision application has been filed under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to in short the B.B.C. Act) against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2013 passed by learned Munsif 1st, Gaya by which the learned court below has decreed the suit for eviction. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The suit premises as described in the plaint is a shop in the ground floor of the building of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity for establishing her son in business after completion of his studies. It has been averred in the plaint that Vivek Kumar the son of the plaintiff is a student of the Bachelor of B.B.M. Course in 3rd year in Gaya College, Gaya. In the written statement, defendant denied the need of the plaintiff for establishing her son in business on the ground that generally after completion of the course of B.B.M., a student is desirous to complete the course of M.B.A and thereafter to make attempt for ensuring a job in any company or bank, and there is no prospect in the town like Gaya for a person to start a business after the completion of the B.B.M. course. It has also been pleaded that in the building where the suit shop is situate is a three storied building and the entire first floor is vacant which is suitable for business. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff has got two other houses in Tekari Road and Mohalla - Sarai, Gaya and therefore her need is only a pretence and not bona fide.

(3.) After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on their behalf, the learned court below has returned the finding on the issue of personal necessity in favour of the plaintiff and has passed the impugned judgment and decree granting the decree for eviction as prayed.