Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Chhabra vs Bijay Kumar Sarawgi on 6 May, 2025
2025:JHHC:13650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 16 of 2014
Om Prakash Chhabra, son of Late Ram Chand Chhabra, residing at
M/s. Exide Power Point, Main Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Hindpiri,
District - Ranchi. ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bijay Kumar Sarawgi, son of Late Rikhab Chand Sarawgi,
resident of Main Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S.- Hindpiri, District -
Ranchi.
2. Smt. Bina Chhabra, wife of Sri Om Prakash Chhabra, residing at
M/s. New Battery Centre, Main Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S.-
Hindpiri, District - Ranchi.
3. M/s. Exide Power Point, Main Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Hindpiri,
District - Ranchi.
4. M/s New Battery Centre, Main Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. -
Hindpiri, District - Ranchi
..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.
Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate.
Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate.
Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate.
For the O.P. No. 1 : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate.
Mr. Karbir, Advocate.
---------
C.A.V. On : 30.04.2025 Pronounced On : 06/05/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 1.
2. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment
dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Munsif-II, Civil
Court, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 52 of 2006, whereby and
whereunder the suit of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 has been decreed
2025:JHHC:13650
and defendant / petitioner has been directed to vacate the suit
premises within three months.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the
plaintiff / opposite party has filed title suit bearing Title Eviction
Suit No. 52 of 2006 stating therein that he is the co-owner-landlord
of the suit premises described in Schedule-A of the Plaint and had
further stated that the defendant / petitioner was inducted as a tenant
in the suit premises on month to month basis situated near Main
Road, Ranchi. It is alleged that the defendant / petitioner is running
a business in the name and style of "Exide Power Point" and "M/s
New Battery Centre" in his name and in the name of his wife
(defendant no. 2) and pay rent @ Rs. 350/- as fixed by the Rent
Controller 20 years ago. Till then, the actual contractual rent was
Rs. 130/- per month. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff / O.P. No.
1 requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation for
opening a business of dealer for consumer items and electric and
electronic gadgets such as Television Sets, Refrigerators, Washing
Machines, Room Coolers, Air Conditioners, Fans etc. The plaintiff
/ O.P. No. 1 requested the defendant / petitioner to vacate the suit
premises in view of his necessity, but the defendant flatly denied /
refused to vacate the suit premises on 17th / 19th April, 2006
respectively, rather started demanding Rs. 1.5 Lacs in consideration
2025:JHHC:13650
for vacating the suit premises. It is further alleged that the defendant
has occupied the suit premises since more than 50 years. There are
other tenants also under the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1, against whom
eviction proceeding on different grounds have been initiated and
pending before the competent civil court. The other two tenants
have also vacated their respective tenanted premises, one shop
which was vacated on mutual understanding is used by his elder
son Rakesh Sarawgi for retail medicines shop, wherein younger son
of the plaintiff is also engaged in assisting his brother. The plaintiff
requires the suit premises for establishing a business for his second
son Uttam Sarawgi and other family members, who are sitting idle.
4. The present defendant no. 1 / petitioner contested the suit by filing
written statement on technical ground like non-joinder of necessary
party, other co-sharers of the property are not being made party.
Plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 is not sole owner of the suit premises and has
no exclusive right to file the present suit. The portion of the
property has been acquired by the State of Jharkhand for widening
of road and for Sanik Board. The Plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 has no
bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his
own use and occupation or by his family members. The plaintiff /
O.P. No. 1 has got several tenanted premises evicted on the northern
portion of the land and had also widening the passage running
2025:JHHC:13650
through middle of his land so as to raise the commercial value of
the property situated behind the suit premises. They further stated
that the shop is situated in a premises consisting of more than 30
shops out of which 07 shops are vacant and are in possession of the
plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 and his family members. Several eviction suits
have been filed by the plaintiff on similar grounds being Eviction
Suit Nos. 08 of 1987 to 11 of 1987. It is further pleaded that the
defendant / petitioner is in occupation of the suit property since last
50 years and he has made huge investments of making
reconstruction of the suit premises and alleges no other source of
livelihood of the defendant except the suit premises. Therefore, in
absence of bonafide need of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1, the suit ought
to have been dismissed. Plaintiff's second son namely, Uttam
Kumar is engaged in medicine shop along with his elder brother
and the shop has a huge sale, therefore, none of the brothers said to
be unemployed and required any further shop. The suit of the
plaintiff is malafide and the grounds for eviction is also not legally
tenable and therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed.
5. The learned trial court formulated the following issues for
adjudication on the basis of respective pleadings of the parties:-
(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action for the
present suit ?
2025:JHHC:13650
(iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder
of parties ?
(iv) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist
between them ?
(v) Whether the plaintiff requires the suit property
bonafidely for the use of his younger son for opening a
separate business establishment ?
(vi) Whether the partial eviction of the suit property will
serve the purpose of the plaintiff or not ?
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as
claimed ?
6. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is
admitted fact.
7. The vital issue nos. (iv), (v) & (vii) have been decided in favour of
the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 with objective findings that the suit
property is reasonably required for personal use and occupation of
the plaintiff in order to get employment of their son and grandson
and other family members. Partial eviction of the suit property is
not serving necessity of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1, therefore, suit was
decreed in favour of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment
has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has failed to
properly appreciate the evidence available on record and also
valuable admissions made by the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 himself and
2025:JHHC:13650
arrived at wrong conclusion. It is apparent from the pleadings as
well as oral testimony of plaintiff witnesses that multiple eviction
suits were instituted against different tenants of the plaintiff and
7-8 shops were vacated. There is no iota of evidence that necessity
and purpose of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 cannot be fulfilled by 7-8
shops and admittedly both sons of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 were
engaged in medicines shops of their own. The plaintiff himself
admitted in his evidence at para-30, 31 & 33 about eviction of the
other tenanted premises and came in possession of the plaintiff /
O.P. No. 1, but the learned trial court has miserably failed to take
judicial notice of changed circumstances, under which, the need of
the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 can be fulfilled by way of eviction of other
tenants, therefore, the plea of bonafide need for own use and
occupation by the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 is absolutely unwarranted in
the facts and circumstances of the case and suit is liable to be
dismissed.
9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of Ramesh
Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram [1992 Supp (2) SCC 623] and in the case
of Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal reported in 2001 (5) Supreme 100,
wherein it has been held that the bonafide requirement must be in
praesenti and mut be manifested in actual need which would
2025:JHHC:13650
evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment
passed in the case of Ratanlal Baid Vs. Sohanlal Saha reported in
1997 SCC OnLine Pat 598, wherein it has been held that landlord
needs to establish the fact that the occupation is not just desired, but
required.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 has
vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of
the defendant / petitioner and submitted that the learned trial court
very wisely and aptly taken into consideration all aspects of the case
of the plaintiff, who is now 75 years old and considerable property
has been acquired by the State Government, which was also
tenanted. The learned trial court arrived at genuine conclusion
about the bonafide need of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 of the suit
premises for his own use and occupation regarding employment of
his son, grandson and other family members. The defendant /
petitioner was residing on a meagre rent since more than 50 years
over the suit premises and enjoying the suit premises, earning huge
amount of money and is capable to set up his own business at
another place. The plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 has not only asserted his
desire about the personal necessity, but also proved the same to the
hilt by adducing evidence. The defendant / petitioner has not been
2025:JHHC:13650
able to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 and has not
pointed out any vulnerable ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment. There is no iota of evidence that the plaintiff / O.P.
No. 1 has inducted any other tenant over the vacated suit premises
during pendency of this case, rather he has engaged his own sons
and also developing other business of electronics. The plaintiff /
O.P. No. 1 cannot be subjected to the desire of defendant- tenant /
petitioner. There is no alternative to the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 to set
up his own business at any other vacant place sufficient for his
purpose. The plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 cannot be deprived from
beneficial use of his own property by his own family members at
the cost of tenants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is fit to be
upheld and confirmed. This revision has no merit and fit to be
dismissed.
12. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned
judgment in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for
respective parties.
13. It is evident from the record that there is relationship of landlord
and tenant between O.P. No. 1 and petitioner. The plaintiff / O.P.
No. 1 has adduced his own evidence examining himself as P.W.-1
and consistently proved the contents of the plaint. He has also
adduced documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-1: Notice dated
2025:JHHC:13650
10.03.84, Exhibit-1/A : Notice dated 24.06.83 (with objection),
Exhibit-1/B : Signature of defendant no. 1 and his brother, Exhibit-
2 : Signature on postal receipt with regard to notice (with
objection), Exhibit-3 to 3/Q : Counterfoil of rent receipt and
Exhibit-4 to 4/Q : Signature of defendant no. 1 at the back side of
the counterfoil, which also fortifies the claim of the plaintiff / O.P.
No. 1. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the bonafide need
of the suit premises by the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 for his own use and
occupation although plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 is owner of several shops
and some of them were vacated due to necessity of widening the
main road and some of the lands were acquired by the State
Government, but the same does not affect the right of the plaintiff /
O.P. No. 1 to take over possession of the tenanted premises allotted
to the tenant / petitioner. The claim of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 about
bonafide need has not been rebutted by the defendant / petitioner
through any cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, the judgment
and decree passed by the learned trial court requires no interference
which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity by way of this
revision. I do not find any merit in this revision, which stands
dismissed.
14. Both parties shall bear their own cost.
15. Pending I.A, if any stands disposed of.
2025:JHHC:13650
16. Let a copy of this order / judgment be sent to the court concerned.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil/
