The judgment established the importance of objectively assessing the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord for eviction and the need for proper consideration of partial eviction under the relevant legal provisions.

1. This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 2001 passed by Execution Munsif, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 56 of 1993 whereby the suit filed for eviction against the defendats/petitioners on the ground of personal necessity from the suit premises situate in Mohalia Machhuatoli, P.S. Kadam Kuan in the district of Patna described in Schedule I of the plaint has been decreed.

2. The case of the plaintiffs/opposite parties is that they constitute a joint Hindu family and plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 is the Karta. The property described in Schedule I was alloted to them in Partition Suit No. 311 of 1978 disposed of on 7.2.1979. The suit premises were let out to Mahangu Ram on monthly rental of Rs. 250/- and after his death his two sons are tenants, namely, the original defendant Rameshwar Prasad who died during pendency of the suit and substituted by his heirs and legal representatives and defendant no. 2/petitioner No. 6 Vijoy Kumar. The other two sons of the defendant though they were not tenants but were also added as party defendants to avoid any technical objection with regard to maintainability of the suit. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3, namely, Lakhan Lal and Bijoy Kumar are unemployed and they required premises reasonably and in good faith for their occupation as they want to open a Kirana Shop and they have no other place to start the said business. Their further case is that partial eviction will not meet their requirement. They requested the defendants to vacate the same but they refused. Hence the suit was filed.

3. The case of the defendants/opposite parties is that tenancy was not monthly tenancy, on the other hand, it was agreed that the defendant will pay as and when demanded. Their father Mahangu Ram had taken the premises on rent for running a hotel and the plaintiffs had agreed that they shall not disturb them till they wanted to run their hotel and as such the landlord was only enhancing the rent from time to time which was originally Rs. 50 only. They were regularly paying the rent. At present, the monthly rent is Rs. 250/- per month. When the plaintiffs refused to accept the rent then the same were being sent through Money Order. They were interested in enhancing the rent and on refusal they filed the suit. Their case is that the plaintiffs have no reasonable requirement of the premises. East of the suit premises they had one Katra which they have got vacated from the tenant and made three katras and two of them are still vacant and plaintiffs can open Kirana shop in the same. Their further case is that the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 is engaged in money lending business and plaintiff/opposite party No.3 is running a Saloon and plaintiff/opposite party No. 2 is a house wife and as such there was no reasonable and bonafide need for eviction of the suit premises.

4. The suit was tried by adopting special procedure under Section 14 of the Act. Both parties led oral and documentary evdence. The Court below having found that tenancy is admitted held that the plaintiffs/ opposite parties required the premises reasonably and in good faith for their own occupation and the plaintiffs have no other suitable place to run Kirana shop. Court below also held that the partial eviction will not meet the substantial requirement of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and accordingly decreed the suit.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners submitted that the finding of the Court below that the plaintiffs required the premises for their own occupation for running a Kirana shop is not according to law in as much as the evidence on record shows that the plaintiff/ opposite parties have other vacant shops also for running business and the present suit was filed only with a view to evict them. Their requirement cannot be termed as reasona