1. This revision is directed against the impugned order and judgment dated 06.03.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division(Munsif), Giridih in Eviction
Suit no.08/2006 whereby the plaintiff’s suit was decreed with a direction to the defendant(petitioner in the present case) to hand over the vacant
possession of the suit premises.Â
2. The plaintiff( O.P. in the present case) had instituted the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity in term of Section 11©
OFLTHE Jharkhand Building(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 ( in short to be called ‘Act’) as he requires the suit premises for
starting the business.Â
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant was inducted as a tenant on the basis of a registered kirayanama for the period
from 12.01.2001 to 07.01.2006. The defendant had appeared and filed their written statement but since no leave was granted the suit was initially
decreed in terms of Section 14(4) of the Act. Against the said order the petitioner had earlier preferred revision and this Court vide order dated
26.08.2016 had remitted the matter to the court below to decide the case on the basis of the evidence and shall exercise its discretion in permitting the
defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses only on limited points of lease deed and personal necessity without putting forth the defence
of the defendant to plead his own case.Â
 The court below, on the basis of the remand, examined plaintiff’s witnesses, who were cross-examined by the O.P. and decreed the suit which
order and judgment is under challenge before this Court.Â
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision reported in the case of …………; (2007) 2 JLJR 166 and submitted that the ratio has
been laid down in the aforesaid case while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of …………; AIR 1981 SC 1113
wherein it has been stated that the landlord for the purpose of personal necessity, has been given very limited defence confining to a person who is the
owner as defence from the defendant …….envisaged in Section 2(f) which is inclusive definition.Â
5. It is contended that perusal of the evidence of the witnesses will disclose that the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.3, has admitted that the
property belongs to his mother. That there was an earlier partition between the brothers which has been supported by P.W.4, Anil Kumar Gupta, who
is also a brother of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that he had instituted a suit
for specific performance of contract as he had paid Rs.3.00 lakhs to the mother of the plaintiff who had entered into an agreement for sale and in part
performance has received the consideration amount. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the court below. Â
6. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the court below has considered the entire aspect
and elaborate discussion of the evidence has been made in para 23 of the impugned judgment.Â
7. In the case of Rajesh Burman vs. Mitul Chatterjee (2009) 1 SCC 398, the Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the meaning of the words
‘maintenance’ and ‘support’. The term “maintenance†is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn., pp. 953-54) thus:
“ … The furnishing by one person to another, for his or her support, of the means of living, or food, clothing, shelter, etc. particularly where the
legal relation of the parties is such that one is bound to support the other, as between father and child, or husband and wife.â€
Likewise, the word “support†as defined in the said dictionary (p. 1439) reads as under:
“That which furnishes a livelihood; a source or means of living; subsistence, sustenance, maintenance, or living. In a broad sense the term includes
all such means of living as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort suitable and becoming to his station of life. It is said to include anything
requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, vacation, traveling expense, or other proper cognate purposes; also, proper care,
nursing, and medical attendance in sickness, and suitable burial at death.â€Â
8. Thus Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of the wife during the pendency of the proceedings however, it is settled proposition that
it cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is the maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. In the instant
case it is admitted that the daughter is living with the petitioner consequently, her right to claim maintenance will also include her own maintenance and
that of her daughter.Â
9. It may be useful at this stage to refer to the definition of ‘maintenance’ as given in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for
short ‘the Act of 1956’). Under Section 3 of that Act, ‘maintenance’ includes (i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence,
education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her
marriage. Â
10. In the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy; AIR 2017 SC  2383, the matter was regarding the grant
of maintenance under Section 25(2) of Hindu Marriage Act. As exposited the instant case pertains to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no much help to the petitioner in the obtaining facts of the instant case.
11. The petitioner is a practicing doctor. There is no material on record to show that the O.P/wife is gainfully employed. The petitioner has himself
admitted that till date he has paid Rs.4,50,150/- as maintenance to the O.P. This shows that the petitioner /husband is a man of sufficient means
having sufficient income. The court below has considered the entire aspect while granting interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- p.m. to the O.P. by the
impugned order.
12. Therefore, in view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and the exposited facts, the amount of Rs.30,000/- p.m. as interim
maintenance is neither exorbitant nor excessive accordingly, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.Â
13. In the result, this revision is hereby dismissed.
14. Since the matrimonial suit is of the year 2013, the court below shall ensure expeditious disposal of the suit preferably within a period of six
months from the date of receipt or production of this order. The parties shall co-operate in expeditious trial of the suit and the court below shall not
grant any unnecessary adjournments.Â
