The court emphasized the objective determination of the extent of the premises and the reasonable requirement of the landlord, and the obligation of the court to act in compliance with the statutory provision, even in the absence of pleading.

1. This is the second round of litigation before this Court at the instance of the tenant-petitioners.

2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed 0a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity (for opening a Kirana shop) in the suit premises which is a shop katra with one room and kitchen measuring about 32 north to south and about 16 east to west facing north of Bari Path situated at Moh: Machhua Toli, PS.Kadam Kuan town, bearing part of Holding No. 13210 C. 109, Circle No.29, Ward No. 17/12. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 23rd June 2001 by the trial Court. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the tenant/petitioners by filing civil revision application being C.R. 1435 of 2001 under proviso to Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said civil revision application was allowed in part on 14.2.2003 [Reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 345]. This Court upheld the finding of the trial court with regard to reasonable and bonafide need of the plaintiffs opposite parties for eviction but remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the question of partial eviction in terms of proviso to Section 11(1) (c) of the Act as the trial Court had not considered the said question in accordance with law.

3. This Court directed that trial Court to decide the matter within four months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties if they want to lead evidence. Inspite of opportunities having been given, the plaintiffs/opposite parties did not lead evidence and took time on one or the other ground as mentioned in the order of the court below. Thereafter, the Court below directed the defendants/tenants/petitioners to lead evidence, though little time was left for them to lead evidence in view of time frame fixed by this Court, but they also did not lead evidence on the ground that the plaintiffs/opposite parties have not lead any evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court held that the partial eviction will not meet the substantial requirement of the landlord/plaintiff/opposite parties and accordingly decreed the suit for eviction for the entire suit premises bythe order dated 26th June, 2003 which has been impugned in this civil revision application.

4. The Revision application has been filed under proviso to Section 14(8) of the Act which empowers this Court to satisfy itself whether the order passed by the Court is according to law or not. The power conferred to this Court under the aforesaid provision is wider than the revisional power conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, but the same cannot be equated with the appellate power. To satisfy as to whether the order is according to law or not, the Court will interfere with the finding of the trial Court only, if the finding is perverse, unreasonable or is contrary to law in the sense that while deciding the matter, the Court has either overlooked the material evidence or has relied upon inadmissible evidence affecting the merits of the case or has not addressed itself to the legal principles governing grant of eviction/partial eviction.

5. As already stated, the finding of the trial Court that the premises was required by the plaintiffs/opposite parties reasonably and in good faith has been upheld by this court and the same has attained finality. The question for consideration is only as to whether the question of partial eviction has been considered in terms of the proviso to Section 11(1) (c) and in the light of the observations made earlier by this Court.

6. To appreciate the point, it is necessary to quote Section 11(1) (c) along with proviso which runs as follows.

"(c) where the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord: Provided that where the Court thinks that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially