The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider partial eviction as required by the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, even if no such plea is taken by the tenant.

1. This revision application is barred by limitation.

2. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this revision application is condoned.

3. The tenant defendant is the petitioner. This revision application has been filed under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 25.9.2000 passed by the Munsif, Danapur decreeing the suit for eviction of the plaintiff-opposite party against the defendant petitioner.

4. The plaintiffs case in brief, is that holding no. 116 situate in mohalla Bibiganj within Danapur Municipality belonged to one Kailasho Kuer grand mother of plaintiff-opposite party no. 2 Kanhaiya Prasad Gupta. The description of the said holding has been given in Schedule-A of the plaint. Her name was recorded in the records of the Municipality and taxes were being paid during her life time. She died leaving behind her two sons, namely, Lakshmi Narain and Ramchandar Prasad the father of plaintiff-opposite party no. 2, and accordingly, the property described in Scheduie-A of the plaint was inherited by her two sons jointly and they came in possession over the same. However, they did not get the name of their mother removed from the records of the Municipality. Ramchandra Prasad, father of the plaintiff-opposite party no. 2 died and thereafter his share in the joint family property devolved upon plaintiff no. 2, his mother and another brother Sachindanand. The defendantpetitioner was inducted as tenant by Lakshmi Narain, uncle of the plaintiff no. 2, as karta of the family in portion of the holding described in Schedule-A of the plaint on monthly rental of Rs. 200/- for running the business of cement pipes etc. twenty years back. The defendantpetitioner came in possession as tenant. Later on, Lakshmi Narain entrusted the power of collecting rent to plaintiff no. 2 and the plaintiff no, 2 used to grant receipt to the tenant. On 14.11.1994 the said Lakshmi Narain executed a deed of will with regard to his half share of Schedule-A property in favour of plaintiff no.1, who is wife of plaintiff no. 2. Ram Dulari Devi, mother of plaintiff no. 2 also executed a separate deed of will in favour of plaintiff no. 1. Thus, the plaintiffs became owner of the entire holding mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint.

5. The defendant, later on, stopped payment of rent and became defaulter and also used the premises for different purposes. The plaintiff no. 2 was earlier running a cloth business in a rented house but was evicted from the said house and he has no place to run his business except the suit land as described in Schedule-A of the plaint. At present, the plaintiff no. 2 is doing Feri for his livelihood. He requested the defendant-petitioner to vacate the suit premises but he did not vacate the same.

6. The defendant-tenant denied the relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the plaintiff but admitted that he was inducted in the premises by Lakshmi Narain, to whom he regularly paid rent but no receipt was granted to him due to cordial relation between them. He also asserted that he was not a defaulter. He asserted that the plaintiffs are not owners of the tenanted premises and as such there was no question of his eviction on the ground of personal necessity as claimed by them. The further stand of the defendant was that the suit was barred under Indian Succession Act as no right can be created on the basis of unprobated will. Thus the plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in the suit premises.

7. During the pendency of the suit, a petition was filed under section 15 of the Act for payment of arrears of rent as well as current rent before the court below and the court below passed order for payment of rent. The defendant did not deposit the money and as such his defence was struck off. In view of stricking off the defence, now the defend