Md. Nasir Hussain v. Basudeo Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6685 of 2014 =========================================================== Md. Nasir Hussain Son of Late Md. Sabir Hussain Resident of Drybesrion Lane Police Station- Danapur, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Basudeo Prasad Son of Late Prahlad Prasad Resident of Machhua Toli, P.O. And P.S. Danapur, District- Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Jha, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-01-2015 Heard Mr. Raghib Ahsan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is also present and has been heard.

The petitioner, who is the tenant-defendant in the suit for eviction, has assailed the order dated 16.01.2013 by which the learned court below has directed that the suit would be tried under the special procedure as prescribed under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted by referring to the plaint that the suit has been filed

Patna High Court CWJC No.6685 of 2014 dt.27-01-2015 claiming eviction on the ground of personal necessity but simultaneously the another relief for payment of arrears of rent or compensation for occupying the suit premises has also been sought. Per contra, Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the plaintiffrespondent has submitted that the plaintiff has specifically omitted the ground of default to be a ground for eviction in the present suit and has reserved the right to sue the defendant if so required for eviction on the ground of default. It has, therefore, been canvassed that any other ground mentioned under Section 11 of the B.B.C. Act has not been added with the ground of personal necessity for seeking eviction decree against the defendant.

It has been propounded that the suit is for eviction on the exclusive ground of personal necessity and the inclusion of the relief for payment of arrears of rent or compensation cannot change the nature of the suit as the claim for the amount of arrears of rent or compensation is not a ground of eviction. After considering the submissions, it is limpid that the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction only on the ground of personal necessity. The relief for the amount of arrears of rent or compensation against the defendant for occupying the suit premises cannot be taken to be the other grounds for eviction taking away the suit from the purview of the special procedure as prescribed under Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act, 1982.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6685 of 2014 dt.27-01-2015 This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Devendra/- U