N.N.TIWARI,J. - (1.) THIS is the tenant's civil revision filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBC Act' or 'the said Act' for short) against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2002 passed by the Munsif, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 25/92, whereby the learned Munsif has decreed the landlord's suit for eviction sought on the ground of their personal necessity.
(2.) THE plaintiffs case was, that they are the owners of the house standing over Holding No. 6, Thakurbari Shop Area, Sakchi, town Jamsedpur, consisting of four shop rooms on the ground floor. The defendant was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs in one shop room as a monthly tenant, on monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - plus electric charges. The defendant was carrying on business of Electronics and other allied goods. Two shop rooms are in occupation of other tenants, namely, Himmat Singh and Jadunath Pathak and the rest one shop room is in occupation of the plaintiff No. 2 who is running business of TV and other Electronics goods. The plaintiffs averred that they belong to a trading family and earn their livelihood by carrying on their business. The plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of the plaintiff Nos. 2 -5 and they are living jointly in a portion of first floor of the building. The plaintiff Nos. 3 and 5 have not been able to engage themselves in business due to want of accommodation. The wife of the plaintiff No. 4 has taken a shop on rent at Sakchi Market and is running business there. The plaintiff No. 3 Umesh Chaudhary required the said premises for his business of courier services and courier parcels and he has got fund for the said business. The plaintiff No. 5 Bimlesh Kumar Choudhary since married in March, 1995 is also unemployed and he also needs the suit premises for running his business of Electrical goods. The plaintiffs, therefore, required the suit premises for the plaintiffs No. 3 and 5, reasonably and in good faith. The suit premise is located in the centre of Sakchi Market and is suitable for the said business of the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 5. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises to which they had agreed and assured to vacate it by 30.9.1991, but subsequently refused to vacate. Hence the suit. The defendant appeared and filed written statement obtaining the leave to contest the suit. The defendant's case is that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have to cause of action for the suit nor they have right to institute the suit. The suit does not come within the purview of Section 14 and Section 11(1)(C) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. According to the defendant, she was not inducted by all the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No. 1 is the exclusive landlady with respect to the said premises. The plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 have no concern with the suit premises. It was also stated that the Holding No. 6 over which the building stands, belonged to Nathulal Chaudhary, the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and the father of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 5. Nathulal Chaudhary had two wives. The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Nathulal Chaudhary through his first wife while plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 are sons through his second wife i.e. the plaintiff No. 1. It was further stated that on the ground floor there are four shop rooms from East to West and the first floor was occupied by United Commercial Bank and on the second floor some rooms belonged to the plaintiffs No. 1, 4 and 5. The first floor has been vacated by the UCO Bank and the plaintiffs are in occupation of the same. There was a partition in the family of Late Nathulal Chaudhary. Four shop rooms were also partitioned and memo of partition dated 17.6,1981 was drawn up. The plaintiff No. 1 inducted the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 300/ -. The plaintiff Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are the owners of the two shops in the ground floor on eastern side which are in occupation of the tenant Jadunath Pathak and the defendant. The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the owners of the shop rooms on the Western side which are in occupation of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and one tenant namely Himmat Singh. The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 thus can not claim the suit shop for their use as they are completely separate from the plaintiff Nos. 1, 4 and 5. The plaintiff Nos. 2 -5 are engaged in different kind of business. The plaintiff No. 3 is engaged with the plaintiff No. 2 who runs his business in the name and style of Audio Vision. The plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 are doing business. Recording Electronics at Sakchi Handi Line, near Shiv Mandir. The plaintiffs did not require the suit premises either individually or jointly. Their intention is to induct another tenant after taking heavy salami (premium) and on higher rent. The suit premises measuring 7' x 14' is a small room and the same can not accommodate the intended business of the plaintiffs.
(3.) BOTH the parties led evidences, documentary as well as oral, in support of their respective claims. The learned trial Court framed several issues. Issue No. 3 is regarding the personal necessity of the plaintiffs, as to whether the plaintiffs' need is bona fide and reasonable. The same issue also included the issue as to whether partial eviction is a practicable solution. The learned trial Court also framed an issue as to whether the plaintiff is a landlord within the meaning of Section 11(1)(c) of BB (L, R and E), Control Act, 1982, as issue No. 6. After thorough appraisal and consideration of the evidences on record and after considering the factual and legal aspects, the trial Court decided both the issue Nos. 3 and 6, in favour of the plaintiff (landlord) and held that the plaintiffs required suit premises reasonably and in good faith for the purpose of business of the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 5 and that partial eviction will not satisfy the need of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court decided other relevant issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit.;