The judgment established the importance of proving reasonable and bona fide requirement for eviction based on personal necessity, and highlighted the need for the court to consider the question of partial eviction in accordance with statutory provisions.

Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The Civil Revision is barred by limitation.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averment made in the limitation petition, I find that a good ground has been made out for condonation of delay in filing this revision. Accordingly, the delay in filing this revision is condoned and the limitation petition, thus, stands allowed.

3. The defendant-petitioners have filed the present revision application under the proviso to sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 18 of 1998/3 of 2001, whereby the 4th Subordinate Judge, Patna, has decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and on the expiry of the lease deed in terms of sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act.

4. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the property described in the plaint. It is also an admitted fact that an unregistered lease deed was executed between the plaintiff-opposite party on the one hand and the defendant-petitioners on the other for a period of eleven months, which expired on 15.9.1997 and the period of the lease was not extended further though it was provided in the lease itself. The original plaintiff claimed eviction on the ground of expiry of the term of the fixed period of lease and on the ground of personal necessity as she was suffering from heart ailment and was under the treatment of the Doctors residing at Rajendra Nagar and Kankarbagh Muhallas, which were nearer to the suit premises. She also required the premises for running an office by her husband, who, after retirement, was enrolled as an Advocate. Later on, when her husband died, an amendment petition was filed, wherein the plaintiff-opposite party claimed eviction on the ground that her only son obtained Master Degree in Business Management and was employed in a private Company. After the death of his father, he has left the job and wants to open a consultancy firm in Patna and the suit premises is the best suited for the said purpose as it is situate in Shrikrishnapuri Muhalla, where a large number of commercial ventures are in existence.

5. The defendant-petitioners resisted the claim on the ground that the tenancy was month to month and not for a fixed period and the plaintiff, taking benefit of her position got their signatures on the document. The lease being an unregistered one cannot be looked into. They also denied the claim of personal need of the plaintiff as has been made in the plaint as well as subsequently brought by way of amendment. It was further stated that the plaintiff has a good house at Asianagar, which is admittedly far away from Shrikrishnapuri and also from the places of the Doctors, who used to treat the plaintiff.

6. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff examined four witnesses and five documents including the lease deed, whereas, the defendant examined fourteen witnesses and filed documents. The trial Court, having considered the matter, found that the plaintiff has proved both the grounds and the partial eviction would not be possible as required by the proviso to sec. 11(1 )(c) of the Act and, accordingly, decreed the suit.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised two points. Firstly, he submitted that the plaintiff has another accommodation at Asianagar and as such she cannot claim eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity. This apart, medical facilities are also available in the Muhalla, where the plaintiff is residing and as such need of the plaintiff is not bona fide and reasonable one. He further submitted that even if the ground of personal necessity for eviction is accepted, but the Court below has not considered the question of partial eviction in terms of proviso to sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act.

8. Learned counsel for the pla