Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been preferred against judgment and decree passed in Eviction suit no. 15/2008 by learned Munsif I, Gaya by which and whereunder learned Munsif I, Gaya decreed the above stated Eviction suit no. 15/2008 directing the defendantpetitioner to vacate the suit premises within 60 days from the date of order, failing which he shall be evicted from the suit premises through the process of the court and furthermore, vacant possession of the suit premises be handed over to the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent brought Eviction suit no. 15/2008 for eviction of the defendant- petitioner under the provision of the Bihar Buildings (lease, rent and control) Act from the suit property detailed at schedule A of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiff-respondent pleaded in the plaint that the suit property bearing holding no. 13 under ward no 9A, presently holding no. 17 ward no 32 (new) situated at Mohalla Tilha Bisar New Area, Civil lines Town/ District Gaya was purchased by her through registered sale deed of 1997 from Gopalchand Bhattacharia and others and the sale deed was executed by their duly authorized attorney, namely, Rameshwar Upadhaya. The suit property consists ground and first floor. First floor of the suit property is occupied by other tenant whereas she has been residing along with her family members on the inner portion of the ground floor. There are two rooms on eastern and western side of the main entrance of the suit property and both the aforesaid rooms are in occupation of the defendantpetitioner as the defendant- petitioner was tenant of her vendor and after purchase, on the request of the defendant- petitioner, she permitted her to continue as tenant of the aforesaid rooms for a period of one year on monthly rental of Rs 200/- and thereafter, the defendant- petitioner started paying rent of Rs 200/- per month to her. After expiry of period of one year, she requested the defendant- petitioner to vacate the rooms but on this or that pretext, defendant- petitioner evaded her request and subsequently, he refused to vacate the rooms and also stopped making payment of rent. The plaintiff-respondent has specifically, pleaded at para 7 of the plaint that for recovery of rent, she would file a separate suit and the present suit has been filed only on the ground of personal necessity.
(3.) Plaintiff-Respondent has averred in the plaint that her husband is a retired Reader of department of geography, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya and after retirement, her husband wants to start a coaching center for subject of geography and for running coaching center, rooms in question are very suitable and, therefore, her need is bonafide, reasonable and in good faith. She further pleaded that her need can not be fulfilled by partial eviction and accordingly, the plaintiff-respondent sought a decree for eviction against the defendantpetitioner from the suit premises.;