- (1.) THIS revision application under section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed against the judgment dated 10th April, 2008 passed by Sub -Judge -VII at Deoghar on remand by the High Court whereby he has decided the question of partial eviction in Title Suit No.22/97.
(2.) I have heard Mr. V.Shivnath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K.Prasad, learned Senior counsel four the opposite party and with their consent, the revision is decided at the admission stage. The plaintiff/O.P. filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 22/97 for a decree of eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit property on the ground of expiry of period of lease and also on the ground of personal necessity. Plaintiffs case in a nut shell was that the suit property was leased out to the defendant for a fixed period commencing from 01.07.1996 to 30.6.1997 on monthly rent of Rs.500/ -by virtue of registered deed of lease dated 26.6.1990. After expiry of period of lease, the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit both on the ground of expiry of period of lease and also on the ground of personal necessity. The suit was decreed on both the grounds.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decreed, the defendant -petitioner filed Civil Revision No.107/05 assailing the finding arrived at by the court below on the ground of expiry of period of lease and also on the ground of personal necessity. This Court after re -appreciation of entire evidence affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court on the issue of expiry of period of lease as also on the ground of personal necessity. So far expiry of period of lease is concerned, I would like to quote paragraph 7 of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in C.R. No.107/05, which reads as under : "After hearing the parties and giving thorough consideration on the facts, evidences and materials on record, I find that learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidences and considered the facts and materials on record as also the provisions of law and has come to the finding that the defendant -petitioner failed to exercise his option for renewal of the tenancy lease after expiry of the original term and that the plaintiff has proved his case that he requires the suit premises for starting his hotel/restaurant business in the suit premises and that the need is reasonable and bonafide. The said findings are based on thorough appraisal of evidences, facts and relevant provisions of law. I find no weighty ground to disturb the said findings of facts arrived at by learned Trial Court.  ;