Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision has been filed by the defendant/ tenant against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2014 and 08.01.2015 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhanbad, in Title Eviction Suit No.56 of 2008, whereby the suit for eviction, on the ground of bonafide need has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff (respondent-herein) is that the defendant (petitioner in the present revision) was a tenant in a shop owned by the plaintiff measuring 9' x 20' ft., i.e., the suit property described as schedule 'B' which is part and parcel of schedule 'A' property measuring 10 decimals. That Shila Saha was the owner of the entire suit land comprising of schedule 'B' and schedule 'A'. After her death the plaintiffs being daughters and son of one deceased daughter, inherited the suit property. The plaintiffs executed a power of attorney in favour of M/s Balajee Developers Pvt. Ltd., and instituted the Title Eviction Suit No.56 of 2008 through the holder of power of attorney on the ground of bonafide need and necessity and termination of monthly tenancy w.e.f on 30.09.2008. The plaintiffs/ landlords by way of bonafide requirement sought demolition of the entire structure including the tenanted shop in question and for construction of apartments for the purpose of residence of the plaintiffs as well as for commercial space required for business of the husband of plaintiff No.3. The plaintiffs had resolved the matter with other tenants who had agreed to vacate the premises and the plaintiffs executed a development agreement with M/s Balajee Developers Pvt. Ltd. for construction of the apartment. The petitioner/ tenant contested the suit inter alia denying the cause of action for the suit of eviction and pleaded that the plaintiffs had no bonafide requirement of the suit premises, i.e., the shop in question. It is averred that the plaintiffs' suit through constituted attorney was not maintainable. That in the garb of bonafide need, the plaintiffs wanted to earn huge money by construction of multistoried building without getting the approval of MADA and for that purpose a development agreement was executed with M/s Balajee Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the issues and on the basis of the evidence on record decreed the suit by aforesaid impugned judgment and decree.;