The Union Of India Through The Chief Postmaster General And ANR. v. Smt. Krishna Devi Khandelwal And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.10 of 2013 ======================================================
1. The Union of India Through The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar South Circle, Patna.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. Sub Post Office Branch Chowk Gaya through the Sub Postmaster, Chowk Sub Post Office, Gaya Kotwali, P.O.-Gaya, District-Gaya. -Defendants-Petitioners.
Versus
1. Smt. Krishna Devi Khandelwal W/o Damodar Das Khan Delwal @ Gulab Khandelwal.
2. Damodar Das Khandelwal @ Gulab Khandelwal S/o Rai Saheb.
3. Sharat Chandra Khandelwal S/o Sri Damodar Das Khandelwal. All are resident of 96, Shaheed Road, Gaya, P.S.- Kotwali, DistrictGaya. -Plaintiffs- Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 22-01-2015 The learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the findings recorded on the issue of personal necessity by the learned court below is not vulnerable. However, it has been further submitted that the plaintiff-opposite parties, seek the eviction only with intention to induct fresh tenant in the suit premises and in view of this fact it has also been submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay the enhanced rent, which may be imposed by the plaintiff reasonably and continue as tenant under the plaintiff.
Patna High Court C.R. No.10 of 2013 (13) dt.22-01-2015 The learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties, however, has submitted that the plaintiffs do not intend to let out the suit premises to tenants and the eviction has been sought on the ground of personal necessity for the purpose of residence of the plaintiffs in the suit premises. In view of the aforesaid stand and submissions by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in this revision application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- U