NAGENDRA PRASAD BARNWAL Vs. JITENDRA PRASAD BARNWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application has been directed against the judgment dated 18.12.1996 passed by Munsif, Giridih in Eviction Suit No. 12/96 whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff-landlord for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the ground of personal necessity of the suit premises was decreed and the appellant-defendant was directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises.

(2.) THE fact in short for the purpose of this revision is that the O.P.- plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit alleging therein that his father, Jogeshwar Prasad Barnwal constructed a house over plot No. 669 of Isri Bazar and inducted defendant-petitioner as tenant on a portion of the house which consists of three rooms as described in schedule of the plaint on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- p.m. The said Jogeshwar Prasad Barnwal died leaving behind his three sons, Jitendra Prasad Barnwal, the plaintiff, Dilip Prasad Barnwal and Anil Kumar Barnwal and they jointly inherited the land and house of plot No. 669 but Dilip Prasad Barnwal also died leaving behind a son Bablu Prasad Barnwal and a daughter. After that there was a partition in the family i.e. between plaintiff, his brother Anil and nephew Bablu and half portion of the house situate on plot No. 669 was allotted to the plaintiff and half to Anil Kumar Barnwal and another separate house was allotted to Bablu. So according to partition all the three branches are in possession of the same. The suit premises in which defendant was a tenant was allotted in favour of the plaintiff and as such necessary intimation was given to the defendant and the defendant attorned rent to the plaintiff and accepted him as a landlord. It is also the case of the plaintiff that earlier plaintiff was carrying on business with his brother but after partition brother of the plaintiff also separated in business and as such the plaintiff is idle and he has got no other suitable accommodation for starting a business and so for his livelihood the plaintiff wants to open a shop in the suit premises which is on the G.T. Road and suitable for business and thus, requested the defendant to vacate the same in May 1996 but he refused to vacate the same, hence the suit was instituted for eviction of the defendant for the reason mentioned above.

(3.) THE trial court recorded a finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and after the partition in the family of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was allotted the suit premises and he was the landlord of the defendant and as the plaintiff is idle so he got bona fide requirement of the suit premises and the plaintiff requires the same in good faith for his own occupation and for starting a business and thus, decreed the suit and ordered the defendant to vacate the entire suit premises within 60 days from the date of the judgment.