NAGENDRA RAI, J.

1. This revision application has been filed by the defendants against the judgment dated 30/11/1990, passed by the Subordinate Judge-VIII, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1990/52 of 1990, by which he has decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties against them.

2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 87/83 in the Court of Munsif, Patna for eviction of the original defendant on the ground of personal necessity, as contemplated under S. 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of a house described in Schedules I and II of the plaint. The original defendant died during the pendency of the suit and the petitioners were substituted as his heirs and legal representatives in his place.

3. Admittedly, the suit premises belonged to late Shri Nageshwar Prasad who inducted the original defendant as tenant in the suit premises. In the year 1949 he gifted the suit premises to one of his sons, namely, Ramesh Prasad, and the original defendant continued as tenant under him.

4. The plaintiffs case, in brief, is that plaintiff No. 1 acquired half of the suit premises as detailed in Schedule I by a registered sale deed dated 23-4-91 and plaintiff No. 2 acquired the remaining half of the suit premises as detailed in Schedule II of the plaint by a registered sale deed dated 22-4-1981 from aforesaid Ramesh Prasad. Their names were duly mutated in the records of the State of Bihar and in the Patna Municipal Corporation. They were living outside and as such they authorised their vendor to collect rent from the original defendant as their agent. When they came back sometime in the year 1982 their vendor informed the defendant to pay rent to the plaintiffs but the defendant did not pay the rent. The plaintiffs required the premises reasonably and in good faith for opening shop and business as their family comes from business community and they are also in business. The suit premises is situated in the main market of Baripath in mohalla Bakarganj of Patna town and it has main facility and advantage of the business potentiality. They requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises for their use and occupation but the defendant did not pay any heed, hence the suit.

5. The original defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement. He resisted the prayer for eviction on the ground that the plaintiffs have not purchased the suit premises from Ramesh Prasad, in the alternative, he asserted that the plaintiffs did not acquire valid title by the sale deeds as the same were executed against the provision of the Urban Ceiling Act. Claim of personal necessity was not reasonable and bona fide as the plaintiffs have a shop at main road in Baripath. His further case is that Ramesh Prasad agreed to sell the disputed land and house to him for a sum of Rs. 75,000.00 as he was in urgent need of money he took an advance of Rs. 10,501.00 from them on 10-12-1979 in presence of several persons. Since there was good relationship between the two families the defendant did not insist for a written document in proof of contract for sale. Ramesh Prasad assured the defendant for executing the sale deed immediately after the disposal of the proceeding under Urban Ceiling Act, but he postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the defendant filed T.S. No. 360/82 for specific performance of contract against said Ramesh Prasad, in the Court of First Subordinate Judge, Patna with respect to the suit premises, who sold the same to the plaintiffs with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the defendant in the aforesaid title suit.

6. The defendant came to this Court in C.R. No. 1857/87 for trial of the present suit with T.S. No. 360 of 1982 filed by them for specific performance of contract. This Court did not allow the said prayer of the defendant but ordered that this case should be heard by the same