Chaudhary, S. N. Mishra, J.

1. In this civil revision-application defendants-petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree, dated 16.8.94 passed by the learned Munsif-III, patna in Title Eviction Suit No.36 of 1991 whereby the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-opposite party has been decreed. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on 8.5.91 being title Eviction Suit No.36 of 1991 under Sec.11 (1) (c) of the Bihar buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that by virtue of a sale-deed 15.12.71 executed by Md. Yahiya yunus through his Attorney, the plaintiff became absolute and accordingly, the defendants denied the bona fide need of the plaintiff.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following six issues :

1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants? 3. Whether the requirement of the plaintiff for the suit premises is reasonable and bona fide ? 4. Whether the requirement of the plaintiff will be satisfied by the partial eviction of the suit premises? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendants from the suit premsies? 6. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? on the consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decided all the aforesaid issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on the grounds, firstly, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants inasmuch as the husband of the plaintiff Md. Yawar yunus is the real owner of the premises, in question. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, has relied upon the rent receipts granted by the husband of the plaintiff. Secondly, that the plaintiff does not require the suit premises bona fide, reasonably and in goodfaith for her own use and occupation, inasmuch as the husband of the plaintiff is still in service living abroad. It has been next submitted that the personal necessity of the plaintiff with respect to the premises, in question, even for running a Nursing Home for her daughter does not exist as the daughter is still in America. It is also alleged that the plaintiff and/or her husband is not capable of running a Restaurant business. Lastly, it has been submitted that the plaintiff is the benamidar of her husband Md. Yawar Yunus, who is the real owner and the landlord of the suit premises. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also challenged the finding on the question of partial eviction of the petitioners from the premises, in question, as the Court below has not taken into consideration the other properties available at the disposal of the plaintiff inasmuch as the plaintiffs husband also possesses about 3 kathas of land on s. P. Verma Road besides other properties, which is most suitable for the alleged business of the plaintiff. Over and above, learned counsel for the petitioners has also challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaint was not verified in accordance with law and the person who has signed the plaint and sworn the affidavit on the basis of the power of attorney, which is not admissible in the eye of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed the statements of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff in order to show that the plaintiff husband is in possession of the other properties apart from the suit premises. He has also relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in the cases of M. M. Quasim V/s. Manohar Lal Sharma and others (AIR 1981 SC 1113) and matulal V/