Phukan, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is from the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Revision No. 231 of 1997 (reported in AIR 1998 Patna 166). The High Court allowed the application filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') by setting aside the order of eviction dated 10-1-1997 passed by the Munsif 1st Begusarai in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 15 of 1995.
(2.) The appellants-landlords filed a suit for eviction of the respondents-tenants from the suit premises under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act i.e. on the ground that the suit premises was reasonably and in good faith required by the landlords for use and occupation.
(3.) The appellant No. 1, since deceased was the father of the appellant No. 2. The eviction suit was filed by both the above two appellants and during the pendency of the civil revision before the High Court, the appellant No. 1 died and the name of his wife was substituted. The appellant No. 2 has two daughters and the eldest daughter was married to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and has no son. The ground for eviction was that the suit premises was required for starting a clinic for the said son-in-law of the appellant No. 2, who has been living with his father-in-law since his marriage in 1992. It was alleged that the son-in-law was unemployed though he was a medical graduate and registered as a Medical Practitioner. The suit was filed against three tenants out of which two tenants agreed to vacate the suit premises and only the defendant No. 3, Umesh Chandra Verma, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal, contested the suit after obtaining leave to defend. The contesting respondent No. 1 pleaded that son-in-law of the appellant No. 2 being a post graduate student in Surgery was residing in the hostel and further contended that the said son-in-law has his own house wherein he could set up the proposed clinic. It was denied that the landlord was in bona fide need of the suit premises. Further case of the respondent No. 1 was that since his 'business flourished very much' the appellant asked for enhanced rent to which he refused and, therefore, he was asked to vacate the suit premises.;