NARENDRA NATH TIWARI,J. - (1.) THIS civil revision has been preferred by the tenant -defendant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'] against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.05 passed by learned Sub -Judge -III, Deoghar in Title Eviction Suit No. 22/97 whereby the Court below has decreed the landlord -plaintiff's suit and the defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises.
(2.) THE plaintiff is one of the owners of the suit premises being Holding No. 139, Ward No. 1 under Deoghar Municipality measuring an area of 150'x20' comprising one hall, one room and a tin shed room. The defendant was given the suit premises on lease for a period of seven years commencing from 1.7.90 and expiring on 30.6.97 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ - by virtue of a registered deed of lease dated 26.6.90. The said lease expired on 30.9.97. The plaintiff now requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as he has to start a hotel business in the suit premises which is an ideal place for that purpose. The plaintiff has also got sufficient fund to start the said business. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises, but the defendant did not vacate the same. Hence the suit for eviction. The defendant -petitioner appeared and contested the suit on obtaining leave to contest. In his written statement the defendant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, but contested on the grounds, inter alia, that the suit land is a vacant land and the same does not come within the purview of the said Building Act. The defendant had taken on lease vacant land for seven years with renewal clause. The defendant exercised the option of renewal and the lease being renewed for another term, the suit for eviction is not maintainable. The defendant also denied and contested the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff has got sufficient alternative accommodation and has no bonafide requirement of the suit premises. The plaintiff does not require the suit premises for business. The plaintiff is the owner of another double storied building situated at Mohalla -Kusnidatta Dwary consisting of several rooms where the plaintiff resides in half portion of first floor and entire ground floor is vacant. The said property is also situated in the heart of Deoghar town just in front of Samrat Hotel which is a commercial area and is suitable for the alleged need of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also has vast agricultural land in Mouza -Marwa, P.S -Sarwan, District -Deoghar and he has also got right to collect gifts at the main door of Lord Shiva temple at Baidyanath Dham out of which he gets sufficient income to maintain the entire family. The plaintiff has thus no bonafide need of the suit premises.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, several issues were framed by learned Trial Court. The parties led their evidences. The plaintiff examined as many as eight witnesses and the defendant examined 21 witnesses. The parties also adduced documentary evidences. The plaintiff proved the deed of lease (Ext.1). The defendant has also proved several documents out of which Ext. A is the notice, Ext. B is the postal receipt, Exts. C series are the money orders receipts, Ext. D is the land receipt and Ext. E is another notice. Learned Trial Court on appreciation of facts and evidences on record came to the findings that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the period of lease expired on 30.9.97 and that the defendant neither took any step for renewal of the lease nor approached the Court under the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act. Learned Court below found that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably for his own use and occupation. Learned Trial Court further held that the plaintiff has got cause of action and the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for in the suit. Learned Court below also held that the partial eviction of the premises shall not fulfil the need of the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court thus decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises.;