AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.03.2016, passed in Title (E) Suit No. 04/2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bokaro decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and directing the defendant/petitioner to vacate the suit premises of the plaintiff/respondent within 30 days.
(2.) The petitioner and respondent/O.P were arrayed as defendant and plaintiff in the court below hence for the sake of convenience they shall be referred to as defendant and plaintiff.
(3.) The plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises comprising of shops Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff pleaded that after retirement from service on 28.02.2009 he requires the suit premises for starting his own business. He had requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises in November, 2011, and granted three months time, but the defendant failed to vacate the shops. Where-after, the plaintiff sent a notice dated 13.03.2012 for vacating the suit premises, but the defendant in his reply dated 30.03.2012 refused to vacate on false and vexatious ground. Consequent thereto, the suit was instituted under Section 11 (1)(c) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (here-in-after to be referred to as the JBC Act for short). The defendant appeared and filed his written statement admitting that he was a tenant of the plaintiff. He admitted that he has a two storied pucca building situated at the distance of 120 ft. from the suit premises. It is admitted that the plaintiff has retired from the service of the Bokaro Steel Plant and resides on the upper floor of the suit premises. The defendant in para-5 of his written statement admitted that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his personal occupation and at the same time it was pleaded that the requirement is mala fide engineered or projected to serve the mala fide intention of plaintiff who wants to oust the defendant from suit premises on account of non-fulfilment of his illegal demand of exorbitant rent. It is pleaded that as per law the landlord can realize money by way of advance (salami) exceeding one month's rent, but the plaintiff had forced the defendant to pay rent of Rs. 20,000/- as advance. The plaintiff increased rent from Rs. 900/- to 1500/- under threat of evicting the defendant and he had realized rent till September, 2010 and the defendant was also forced to pay rent of Rs. 35,000/- as pagri. It is pleaded that the plaintiff again on threat of eviction compelled the defendant to enhance the rent from 1550/- to 1750/- and a time bound agreement of tenancy was sought to be executed, but the defendant did sign since the agreement stipulated that the tenancy for 11 months would commence from 23.09.2010 and thereafter if cordial relationship was maintained then by mutual consent the tenancy would be extended further. It is argued that there was no personal necessity of the plaintiff who is commercially sound and his entire family is well settled. It is stated that he is a person of old age and he requires rest and he has got no planning for business nor has the plaintiff disclosed the nature of business or what was the necessity for doing the business. It was pleaded that for starting a business there is competition and it requires hard work both mental and physical. That the plaintiff being a retired person was capable of doing such stressful work moreover he had no experience of business, hence, the requirement was bona fide. That in fact the wish and desire of the plaintiff cannot be a termed as genuine requirement for starting the business. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is in the habit of enhancing the rent arbitrarily and he has forced the defendant time and again to pay enhanced rent. That the building is three storied building having rooms on ground floor and the first floor of the building are used for commercial purposes. That one unit of two rooms on first floor and one room by the side of stairs are vacant and the front side of second floor is also vacant so if the plaintiff has any necessity he can start the business in the said vacant rooms. On amendment the defendant pleaded that on the back of the suit premises one Mr. Sabirudd in the proprietor of City Electronics had taken two rooms measuring 10' x 10' and 20'x 15' for business purpose which has been lying vacant and unused. On the above grounds, it is pleaded that the plaintiff's requirement of suit premises is bona fide and the suit is fit to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as seven issues of which issues Nos.V, VI & VII as hereunder:- V. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises mention in the Schedule 'B' of the plaint ? VI. Whether there is any bona fide personal necessity of the suit premises to the plaintiff ? VII. Whether the necessity of the plaintiff be met if partial eviction of suit premises is allowed? are relevant for adjudication in the present revision. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court has decreed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises within 30 days, hence, the present revision.;