The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the question of partial eviction and the need for substantial satisfaction of the landlord's requirement under section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The tenants are petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2002, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Patna, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- opposite parties filed for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity under section 11 (1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is admitted position that the proceeding has been conducted by adopting the special procedure as provided under section 14 of the said Act.

3. Admittedly, one Durga Devi Khemka was the owner of the property and she inducted the petitioners as tenants on a monthly rental of Rs. 2700/- per month. On 13.10.1993, the plaintiffs purchased the premises from Durga Devi Khemka and the petitioners having been informed about the aforesaid transfer, started remitting the rent to plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 through money order. The suit premises are a single storeyed pucca house consisting of partly asbestos roof and partly roof of wooden berge. The tenants were using the same for keeping papers and for other purposes. The southern portion of the suit property is vacant and is not under the tenancy of the tenant-petitioners.

4. The plaintiff-landlords case is that plaintiff no. 1 Bangali Prasad Gupta has a Homeo Hall named National Homeo Hall and plaintiff no. 2 is his wife and plaintiffs no. 3 and 4 are their sons. Their sons are grown-up and married and they have children also. They are unemployed and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 (father and mother) want to establish them in business. They have got their own house over a piece of land, measuring 16 feet x 30 feet in Muhalla Sabjibagh itself and they constructed a four storeyed building. The ground floor is used for business.The first floor and the second floor are used as residence by the plaintiffs. The third and fourth floors are used for storing medicine cartoons. Each of the floors consists of one room with kitchen and store etc. Only the fourth floor consists of one room with verandah. The total number of the family having increased to eleven, they have no sufficient accommodation. This apart, the house is also unhygenic for lack of space. They want the suit premises for the purpose of residences as well as for running a Homeopathic shop by the two sons of plaintiffs no. 1 and 2. In other words, they require the suit premises reasonably and in good faith. They demanded vacation of the suit premises, but the defendants refused to do the same. Hence, the suit.

5. The tenant-petitioners admitted the tenancy but asserted that the plaintiffs have no common action as they have purchased the property by three sale-deeds. Accordingly, the single suit for eviction was not maintainable. They used the premises not only as a godown but for manufacturing purposes also; inasmuch as the papers are used to be processed and they are cut to sizes and hence the tenancy was yearly though the mode of payment was monthly. Their claim for personal necessity is only a pretext. They do not require the premises for their personal need. They have a huge building in Muhalla Sabjibagh, which is a five storeyed building. The ground floor is used for business and other floors are used as residence and are sufficient to meet the requirement of the plaintiffs. The suit premises are not fit for residence and part of the building is still vacant and the plaintiffs can accommodate in the said portion by renovation and reconstruction. They have also other accommodation in the other part of the town.

6. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and also filed documentary evidence, whereas, defendants examined nine witnesses and filed documentary evidence. The court below after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, held that the need of the plaintiffs is genuine and bona fide as two sons of plaint