IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No.01 of 2024 ---- Kallu Prasad Burman, s/o Late Sukar Prasad Burman, aged 57 years, r/o Tundi Road, Govindpur, PO & PS Govindpur, District-Dhanbad …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Sri Bhola Prasad, s/o Late Ram Krishna Prasad, r/o Tundi Road, Govindpur, PO & PS Govindpur, District-Dhanbad 2. Ashok Kumar Burman, s/o Late Sukar Prasad Burman, r/o Tundi Road, Govindpur, PO & PS Govindpur, District-Dhanbad …. …. Opposite Party(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Adv. For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv. ---- 09/Dated: 27th February, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present civil revision has been filed against the judgment dated 29.03.2023 and decree drawn on 05.04.2023 by the Civil Judge Junior Division-I, Dhanbad in Title Eviction Suit No.3 of 2012. 3. It appears that the suit has been filed under Section 11(1)(C) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011. 4. From the argument and pleading of the parties, it appears that: a. The present revisionist having a furniture shop and the landlord wants to shift the medical shop in the same premises. b. Tenancy in not in dispute. c. The present landlord has acquired the status of the landlord after purchasing the property from the erstwhile landlord. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that it is nothing but misuse of the process of the court as several grounds have been taken for ousting the present revisionist from the premises in question. 6. From mere perusal of the plaint, it has been stated that 1. The suit premises is in dilapidated condition. 2. The landlord who has a medical shop in the rented house has been asked to vacate the house from the landlord i.e. Kali Prasad Saw. 3. It has been stated that business has to be expanded for the benefit of next generation. 2 C.R. No.01 of 2024 4. It has been also stated that for the expansion of his own business he needs some storage place. 7. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in his evidence it has been stated by the present landlord that he has not received any notice for vacating the premises. Further, the said landlord i.e. Kali Prasad Saw has not been examined. Even his son has not been examined. It has been further submitted that this landlord has some other premises also where some vacant portion is available. Thus, there is no evidence. Only on the basis of conjecture and surmises, the impugned order has been passed which is bad in law. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that i. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. ii. The status of landlord is also not in dispute. iii. The landlord is presently running a business of medical shop in a rented premises and this fact has also not in dispute by the parties. 9. It is settled principle of law that the landlord has every right to utilise the premises as per his requirement. In the present case, he has purchased the land for the purpose of utilisation and this fact coupled with the fact that he is running the present business in the rented premises, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present revision. Accordingly, this present civil revision stands dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/- Uploaded