R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Act for short) by the defendant/petitioner -tenant, against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2005 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 30 of 2000 by the learned Subordinate Judge -II, Deoghar, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite parties -landlords under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act for eviction on the ground of personal necessity.
(2.) THE case of the landlords in short is as follows. The suit premises was leased out to the tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/per month. It was required for running business. Their residential premises is also inadequate. It has become absolutely necessary for them to separate themselves and to build their own houses and establish their own businesses. The suit premises is the only place suitable for the purpose. During pendency of the suit, there has been partition in Title (Partition) Suit No. 31 of 2002 and as per the decree, the suit premises was allotted in the share of two of the plaintiffs, namely, Niru Kumar Tiwari and Narayan Kumar Tiwari who had to vacate their present dwelling house at Khushi Dutta Dwary Lane which has been allotted exclusively to Digambari Devi, in the said decree, and since the said two plaintiffs did not have any other property in the town other than the suit premises, their requirement have become acute for their living therein with their families and for carrying on some business, and that partial eviction will not fulfill their requirement. The case of the tenant in short is as follows. The vacant land was let out on monthly rental of Rs. 30/ - some times in the year 1969 on which three shades have been constructed by the tenant for office and Gaddi purposes out of his own fund for running business. The alleged requirement is not bona fide. The said property of the landlords, situated in Khushi Dutta Dwari Lane, is a big building with some vacant rooms. The landlords have other buildings in which they are doing business of Guest House. The landlords have other rooms and building adjacent to the suit property which has been let out to some of the tenants. The said partition suit is collusive suit and was filed for the purpose of making out a case of personal necessity. The suit premises is not suitable for the alleged requirement. Partial eviction will not suit the tenant. The suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act and it is bad due to non service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) THE trial court framed 11 issues. After considering the evidences brought on the record by the parties, the trial Court found as follows. The landlord proved their case. The tenant could not prove his case - that only land was given on' rent on which he made construction. it is proved that a big family of the landlords consisting of about 24 members is residing in a house of only five rooms. The tenant could not prove that after partition, the landlords do not require the suit premises. Partial eviction will not fulfill the requirement. The suit was maintainable under the Act as vacant land was not given on rent as alleged by the tenant, rather the suit building was given on rent to the tenant.;