AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Sinha, J.—This application u/s 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to of the sake of-brevity as ''the Act'') arises out of a judgment and decree dated 5th June, 1989 passed by Sri P.K. Upadhyay, Additional Munsif, 2nd Court, Dhanbad in Title Eviction Suit No. 34 of 1985, 17 of 1988, whereby a and whereunder the said learned court decreed the suit for eviction tiled by the Plaintiffs-opposite parties on the ground of their personal necessity.
Admittedly, Sri Suleman Ansari father of the Plaintiffs-opposite parties was owner of the suit premises which have been described in Schedule-A of the plaint.
The Plaintiffs inducted the Defendants in a portion of the Schedule-A premises which have been described in Schedule-B of the plaint on a rent of Rs. 75/- per month.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff No. 1 has been working as a welder and he hag decided to carry on his own welding business and thus the suit premises is bonafide and in good faith required for his own use and occupation.
The Defendants-Petitioners appeared and filed a written statement in the aforementioned suit upon obtaining leave of the court to contest the same wherein, inter alia, it was alleged tint the Plaintiffs intended to enhance the monthly rent illegally from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 150/- per month and the suit had been filed as the Defendants did not agree to the said proposal of the Plaintiffs.
It was further contended that the Plaintiff No. 1 is doing welding work in Dumri and the suit premises is not required for carrying on business.
On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues:
Is the suit maintainable either in law or fact?
Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties?
Is there any cause of action for the present suit?
Is the Plaintiff entitled to a decree as prayed for?
To what relief or reliefs if any the Plaintiff is entitled to?
The learned court below upon consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have been able to prove their bonafide requirement in respect of suit premises.
Mr. R.K. Marathia, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has principally raised four questions in support of this application.
The learned Counsel firstly submitted that as the Plaintiff No. 1 did not have enough money to start a business, his requirement cannot be said to be bonafide.
The learned Counsel, in this connection has relied upon a decision of mine in Ramesh Chandra Agarwal and Ors. v. Bhushan Ram 1989 PLJR 1188).
The learned Counsel next contended that at the time of letting out the premises itself the requirement of the Plaintiff No. 1 existed, the question of requirement for the suit premises reasonably and in good faith does not arise.
The learned Counsel further contended that the suit premises is not suitable for starting a business in welding and in fact, the Plaintiffs have a vacant premises which could be utilised for the said purpose.
The learned Counsel further contended that in any event, as the learned court below has not taken into consideration the question as to whether the requirement of the Plaintiff would be substantially met by evicting the Defendants-Petitioners from a portion of the suit premises as is required under the proviso appended to Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act, the impugned order is vitiated in law.
According to learned Counsel, it is admitted that the suit premises measures 8'' � 18'' and thus it was possible to divide the suit premises into two separate shop premises.
Mr. Marathia in support of his contention drew my attention to the evidences of PWs. 2, 4, 5 and 6 as also that of DW 1 and DW. 2.
Mr. M.M. Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs-opposite parties, on the other hand also took me through the depositions and submitted that from the evidences on record, it is evident that the Plaintiffs have been able to prove their bonafide requirement.
Admittedly, the suit premises was let out to the Defendants by the Plaintiffs in the year 1981. PW. 4 however stated that when Dr. Choudhary (the ex-tenant) vacated the suit premises, the Plaintiff No. 1 intended to start Easiness.
However, from the deposition of PW. 3, it pin that the Plaintiff obtained training with said witness and obtained a certificate of a order in the year 1984. The said certificate to marked as Ext. 2 which shows that Md. Sajid has completed the course of welder, and hereafter, he started working under the different contractors as a welder.
In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that although the Plaintiff intended to occupy the suit premises for starting a business, the suit for eviction filed in the year 1985 i.e. liter a period of four years will not be bonafide Inasmuch as noticed hereinbefore, only in the year 1984, the Plaintiffs obtained the certificate of a welder and thus he acquired the qualification to start an independent business of welling in that year.
It is true that P.W. 2 has stated that for starting a welding shop, costly machines arc required and the Plaintiff does not have any money for the present and he would arrange therefor.
It further appears that P.W. 4, who is elder brother of Md. Majid. for whose requirement of the suit premises, the suit was instituted also stated that Plaintiff does not have enough money for the present but all the brothers would contribute therefor.
P.W. 5 has also stated that the Plaintiff No. 1 has the requisite capital with him to start a business.
However, Majid, who examined him-self as P.W. 8 in para-8 of his deposition categorically stated only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be required for starting a business for welding and he can arrange for the money as ill his brothers are likely to contribute. P.W. 2 also stated that all the brothers are ready to contribute the amount. P.W. 2 further stated that amount required for starting a business can be arranged.
In Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Ors. v. Bhushan Ram 1989 PLJR 1188 this Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held that as the Plaintiff was not sure about the nature of the business he intends to start and as he also did not have the requisite capital to start a business, his requirement cannot be said to be bonafide.
The case at hand stands on a different footing, inasmuch as in the plaint itself it has been stated by the Plaintiffs that the premises is required for starting a welding shop.
Although, some of the witnesses have stated that lathe machines are costly, it does not appear that the Plaintiff No. 1 intended to install lathe machines in the suit premises.
The Plaintiffs had all along been stating that the Plaintiff No. 1 would start a small welding shop. The estimate of the P.W. 8 that for starting a business in welding Rs. 10,000/- would be necessary, cannot be said to be unreasonable.
P.W. 8 further stated that he had been saving about Rs. 200/- per month out of his monthly income from working with Contractors.
As noted hereinbefore, however, P.W. 2 stated that all the brothers of Majid intend to help him in. starting a business.
In this situation it cannot be held that it is a case where the Plaintiffs'' suit to occupy the suit premises for starting a business in welding can be thrown out only on that ground.
It is not disputed that the Plaintiff No. 1 has been working under different Contractors and only upon obtaining the Welder''s certificate, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit on the ground of their personal necessity and thus their requirement cannot be held to be unreasonable ,
Thus, the second contention raised by Mr. Marathia has also no substance.
Mr. Marathia, as, noticed hereinbefore, submitted that the suit premises is not suitable for starting a business in welding inasmuch as near about the suit premises there had been cloth shops, Kirana shops, Aatta Chakkis etc. as was admitted by P.W. 2 in Para-3 of his deposition.
However, D.W. 4 m para-9 of his evidence of himself admitted that there has been a lathe machine shop about 100 yards away from the suit premises.
D.W. 5 in para-7 of his deposition also stated that there is a workshop near the suit premises which is known as Bhola workshop.
In view of the statements made by the Defendants'' witnesses themselves, in my opinion, it cannot be said that suit premises is not suitable for starting a business in welding.
it is true that D.W. 1 and D.W. 7 stated that one shop premises belonging to the Plaintiffs and which is situate on the other side of the road where suit premises is situate is vacant.
No such case was made out in the written statement.
The Defendant did not file any document to show that the Plaintiff had a vacant shop.
D.W. 8, who is the Defendant No. 2, in his deposition also does not state that the Plaintiffs have any vacant shop in their possession.
Mr. Marathia, when questioned, fairly conceded that no suggestion had been given to the Plaintiffs that they had a vacant shop on the other side of the road where the suit premises is situate and Md. Majid can start his business therein.
The learned court below, who had the opportunity to look the demenour of D.W. 1, held that his evidence is not free from doubt and cannot be relied upon.
D.W. 3 in para-12 of his deposition stated that Khalil, Rustam and Abdul Quadir are tenants of the Plaintiffs and except these three shops, he is not aware as to whether the Plaintiffs have any other shop or not.
D.W. 7 made out a new case inasmuch as, he stated that Majid has a School in front of shop which is vacant but no such case has been made in the written statement.
In cross examination, this witness stated that at the time of drafting the written statement, it was not written that there was a school in front of the shop. This witness admitted that he has no paper to show that the Plaintiffs have any vacant shop.
Taking thus all facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that there is nothing on the records to show that the shop promises is not suitable for running a business in welding and that the Plaintiffs have any vacant premises which can be utilised for running a business by Md. Majid.
So far as the contention of Mr. Marathia that the requirement of the Plaintiffs would be substantially met if the Defendants are evicted from a portion of the suit premises, it may be mentioned that no such case was made out in the written statement.
The dimension of the shop premises has been staled in Schedule-B of the plaint to be 8'' by 18'' only.
Mr. Marathia argued that it has not brought on records as to whether the forntage of the suit premises measures 18'' or 8''.
Prima facie, that measurement being 8'' by 18'' which has not been denied, a presumption can be raised that the front portion of shop premises is 8'' and not 18''.
It is true that the learned court below wt arrived at a finding that if the Defendant are evicted from a portion of the suit premises, the requirement of the Plaintiffs should be met as envisaged under the proviso appended to Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act.
It may be noticed that PW 4 in his evidence stated that part eviction would not fulfill the requirements of the Plaintiffs. PW 6, who is Plaintiff No. 1 has also stated in his deposition that part eviction of the Defendants from the premises would not be sufficient for his work.
DW 3 in para-17 of his deposition categorically stated that if the disputed shop divided into half and half, two shops cannot be ma therein.
Similar is the evidence of DW. 6 who is Defendant No. 2 in para-9 of his deposition and that of DW 7 who is as Defendant No. 1 in para-10 of his deposition.
From the evidences on record, as also in view of the fact that the suit premises contains only one room with one Varandah, and keeping in view of the nature of the business carried out by the Defendants namely, cloth shop, it cannot be said that the requirement of the Plaintiffs would be substantially met if the Defendants are evicted from a portion of the suit premises.
It is now well known that when the suit premises consists of one room, prima- facie, it has to be held that the requirement of the Plaintiffs must be in respect of entire room particularly, when he intends to carry on an independent business which would require some space to keep his machineries, entertain his customers etc.
Further, the learned court below has arrived at a finding of fact, which has not been shown to be perverse.
It has also not been shown that the learned court below has not taken into consideration any relevant facts not has based his decision on and irrelevant matter or on any extraneous consideration.
Taking thus ail facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that there is no merit in this Civil Revision application which is accordingly dismissed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.