1. The tenants have filed the present revision application under the proviso to section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2001 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 30 of 1997, whereby the court below has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-opposite parties for eviction with regard to the properly detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity under section 11(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The suit premises consists of a shop (Katra) facing the main road and bearing holding no. 35, Circle no. 180, Ward no. 32. situated in Muhalla Jhauganj. P.S. Chawk, Patnacity, Patna. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the land-lords and the father. of the defendants was inducted as tenant in the said shop on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/- and the last rent was paid up to the month of March, 1996. Thereafter, they stopped the payment of rent. Plaintiff no. 1 was in service and he retired in the year 1993. He has one unemployed son, namely, Shyam Sundar and one handicapped unmarried daughter, namely, Miss Madhuri Kumari. Due to Polio attack, said Madhuri Kumari became handicapped and it is not possible to marry her. Daughter of plaintiff no.1 obtained training in beautician course for the purpose of opening a Beauty Parlour in order to make her self dependent. According to the plaintiffs, the suit premises is required reasonably and in good faith for opening a Beauty Parlour with a view to engage daughter of plaintiff no.1 for her livelihood. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises but they refused to do so and hence the suit for eviction.

3. The case of the defendant-petitioners in brief, is that they denied relationship of landlords and tenants. They also denied the personal need of the plaintiffs. They admitted that they were inducted as tenants in the suit premises and were in possession thereof as tenants. However, they denied that they were tenants of the plaintiffs. They stated that they were tenants of Shambhu Nath, Bisheshwar Prasad and Bishwanath Prasad (plaintiff no.3 and two other brothers of the plaintiffs). The aforesaid three persons sold the premises to the defendants mother Smt. Radha Devi by two registered sale-deeds dated 21.7.1996 and 7.8.1997 and, thereafter, the mother of the defendants became the owner of the suit premises. Bishwanath Prasad, though was one of the plaintiffs, but has supported the case of the defendants. According to their case, the suit premises falling in plot no. 460, belonged to one Jhabbu Sao. who died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Chiranji Lal and Gobardhan Lal. Gobardhan Lal was married to Kaushalya Devi. In 1938, there was a partition by a registered deed between the two sons of Jhabbu Sah and Gobardhan Lal received half share of the property in the western portition measuring 22 decimals. At the time of partition, in 1938 family of Gobardhan Lal consisted himself, his wife, Kaushalya Devi and his sons, namely, Ram Narain Lal, plaintiff-opposite parties Bishwanath Prasad and Ram Dhani Prasad. After partition, again two daughters and three sons were born. Three sons are Shambhu Nath, Satya Narain Prasad and Bisheshwar Prasad. The daughters did not claim any interest in the property. In 1973, one of the sons of Gobardhan Lal, namely, Ram Narain Lal sold two annas share to his remaining brothers. Thus, the share of the remaining five brothers i.e. the plaintiffs and his two other brothers became 2 annas 6 pies. Gobardhan Ladied in 1974 and in 1993 his widow died and their shares fell upon the five sons including three appellants. In 1995, an oral partition took place, according to which the properties were divided by metes and bounds between five brothers including the three plaintiffs and the suit premises fell into the share of Shambhu Nath, Bishwanath Prasad and Bisheshwar Prasad, who sold the property to the mother o