Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The defendants have filed the present revision application against the judgment and decree dated 22nd May, 1990, passed by Subordinate Judge II Darbhanga, in Eviction Suit No 2 of 1986 by which he has decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-opposite party against them on the ground of personal necessity with regard to the suit premises under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviciion) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

2. The plaintiff-opposite party btought the aforesaid suit for eviction of the petitioners from the two eastern most shops on the ground-floor (which are presently amalgamated into one) and eastern most one room on the first floor being portions of Holding No. 200 situate at Tower Chowk, Katki Bazar in the town of Darbhanga, described in Schedule A of the plaint.

3. Admittedly, the defendants were inducted as tenants in the suit premises by the father of the plaintiff Bhagwan Das Daruka and in partition between Bhagwan Das Daruka and his sons, the suit premises fell in the share of the plaintiff and the defendants accepted him as landlord.

4. The plaintiffs case, in brief, is that he is the head and karta of the Family consisting of himself and his three sons, namely, Dilip Kumar Daruka, Deepak Kumar Daruka and Dinesh Kumar Daruka and in that capacity he has filed the present suit. He and his sons are the owners of the suit premises and defendants are month to month tenants of the same, consisting of three rooms which are let out to them separately. Eastern room on the ground floor was let out to them on monthly rental of Rs. 230, western room on the ground floor on monthly rental of Rs. 130 and the one room on the first floor on a monthly rental of Rs. 65. Though separate receipts are granted with regard to the three aforesaid suit premises but the entire premises are the subject-matter of one tenancy. The plaintiffs family belong to the trading class and main source of income of the family is business. Two sons of the plaintiff, namely, Deepak Kumar Daruka and Dinesh Kumar Darukn are still unemployed. They have taken practical training in the cloth business and one of them namely Deepak Kumar Daruka wants to start a cloth businese and it is the duty of plaintiff to provide acchmmodation to him for the said business. The suit premises is the most suitable place for running a cloth business for Deepak Kumar Daruka. Plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the aforesaid premises for the said purpose but they refused, hence the suit.

5. The defendants do not deny the fact that they are tenants under the plaintiff but their assertion is that the plaintiff is not the karta of the joint family consisting of himself and his three sons. He and this three sons are separate and they are doing their own trade and business and he same is proved by the fact they are submitting separate incom-tax returns. Plaintiffs son Deepak Kumar Daruka is not unemployed. He is carrying on his senarate business of money lending and investment tn different ways. The plaintiff does not require the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for starting a business for his sons Deepak Kumar Daruka; on the other hand, he has filed the present suit with a mala fide intention to evict them from the suit premises as they did not agree to enhance the rent of the premises as demanded by the plaintiff. It was also asserted that the plaintiff with mala fide intention did not allow them to use the flight of stairs which was the part of the tenancy and was being used by them for going to the first floor from the ground floor. It was further asserted that the single suit was not maintainable inasmuch as there were three different tenancies and that gave rise to three separate and distinct causes of action and three suits should have been filed.

6. The suit was tried under the special procedure provided under Sec. 14 of the Act. Both the parties adduced oral and d