M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2003 passed by Subordinate Judge -III, Dumka in Title Eviction Suit No.11 of 1999 whereby he has decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity.
(2.) THE plaintiff -Opp. Party's case as given in the plaint is that the double storied building comprised within Holding No.161 and 161/119 (old/new) Ward No.3/10 originally belonged to Sita Devi Saraf, wife of Banarasi Lal Saraf. The plaintiff alleged to have purchased half portion of the ground floor towards western side along with its upper portion of the entire building by a registered sale deed dated 24.4.1997. The other portion towards eastern side was purchased by one Rajesh Kumar Tekriwal on the same day from Sita Devi Saraf. The plaintiff said to have got his name mutated in the Zamindari Sirista of Dumka Anchal and also in the Dumka Municipality and paid rent and municipal taxes. The plaintiff's further case is that the defendant , namely Shyam Lal Kedia, was a month -to -month tenant under original vendor Sita Devi Saraf occupying the ground floor of the building on monthly rent of Rs.325/ -. After purchase, the plaintiff asked the defendantpetitioner to pay half of the rent, but he did not do so even after information given to him by the previous landlord Sita Devi Saraf. The plaintiff's case is that he requires the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for his own use and occupation and for his family members. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the purpose of purchase of the suit premises is for shifting his office and godown as the plaintiff is registered dealer of oxygen cylinder. Civil Revision No.554 of 2003 2 The defendant -petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. The relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied and disputed by the defendant and he further pleaded that he was inducted as tenant of the entire ground floor of the building having six rooms and the entire upper portion of the building which is in occupation of Shyamal Tekriwal. The defendant's further case is that the description of the suit premises given in the plaint is vague and self contradictory and also in conflict with the description given in the sale deed. The defendant further denied and disputed the personal necessity alleged by the plaintiff as the same is neither reasonable nor bona fide.
(3.) THE trial Court framed the following seven issues for consideration: - 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation? 3. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit? 4. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant? 5. Is the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith require the suit property for his personal necessity? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree of eviction against the defendant? 7. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? ;