S.K.Katriar, J.

1. The defendants are the petitioners in an eviction suit. This civil revision application u/s. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the judgment dated 5-6-2000, passed by the learned Munsif, East Muzaffarpur, in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1996 Jugal Kishore Barnwal V/s. Santosh Kumar and Ors., whereby the plaintiffs suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity in terms of sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act has been decreed on contest with costs and the defendants have been directed to vacate the suit premises within a period of three months.

2. We shall go by the description of the parties before the trial Court. The plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiffs eldest son (Navin Chandra PW6) is unemployed, and the suit premises is needed to set up a business for grocery and herbal items/products and to settle him in life. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the suit premises is a single room/shop covering 11 x35 on the ground floor in the township of Muzaffarpur which was let out to the original defendant (Lal Babu Sah) who has been running a shop in grocery items. The original defendant died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by his heirs as defendants who are petitioners before me. The plaintiffs case is that he is himself engaged in the business of grocery items and herbal items/products in a rented premises in the township of Muzaffarpur. He has five sons and two daughters. Navin Chandra is his eldest son who could not get a job for himself, is unemployed, and is in urgent need of the suit premises to start business. The plaintiff has, therefore, decided to start a business for his eldest son in grocery items and herbal items/products in the suit premises. On the other hand, the defendants case is that the plaintiff is the owner of a double-storeyed house and the defendants are in possession of only one room on the ground floor. The defendants further case is that the plaintiff does not need the suit premises reasonably and in good faith, and is only a device to evict the defendants. Further more, the dispute arose because the plaintiffs demanded a big sum of pagri and enhancement of rent which the defendants could not afford and the suit premises does not justify the same. Lastly, the defendants case in the alternative is that partial eviction may be ordered. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The trial Court on a consideration of the materials before him has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs eldest son (Navin Chandra) is sitting idle since 1996 and, therefore, the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith requires the suit premises to settle his son. Navin Chandra has the requisite experience of the business in grocery and herbal items and has also the requisite capital for the same. He has lastly found that partial eviction will not serve the plaintiffs need. In view of the these findings, he has decreed the suit and ordered for eviction of the defendants within a period of three months time.

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for the defendants (petitioners) had made only one submission, namely, the same falls far short of the requirement of the proviso to Art. 11(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, the trial Court has failed to discuss properly and in accordance with law whether or not the offer of partial eviction made by the defendants fulfils the personal need of the plaintiff substantially. In his submission, the discussion is unsatisfactory and has been concluded by a cryptic conclusion of the trial Court which is tantamount to his Ipse dixit rather than a well-discussed finding supported by adequate materials on record. He has relied on the following reported judgments: (i) -, NasirulHaqu