V.N.Sinha, J.

1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kumar for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Chandra Prasad Sinha for the opposite party on the interlocutory application bearing No. 4500 of 2003 wherein prayer has been made to condone 34 days delay in filing this civil revision application.

2. It appears from perusal of the interlocutory application that the aforesaid delay in filing the civil revision application was caused on account of erroneous advice tendered by the counsel for the petitioners that period of 90 days is available for filing the revision under Sub-section 8 of Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act, 1982 from the date of judgment and decree passed under the said Act. As the delay in filing the civil revision application was caused due to the erroneous advice of the learned counsel and period of limitation for filing the revision under the Act is sixty days, I deem it expedient to condone the delay in filing this civil revision application. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay of 34 days in filing the civil revision application is condoned. Having condoned the delay, I heard the counsel for the parties on the merits of the civil revision application.

3. By this civil revision application the tenant-petitioners assailed the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2003 passed by Shri Bimal Kumar Sinha, Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda in eviction suit No. 9 of 1999 whereby he has decreed the eviction suit and has directed the tenant-petitioners to vacate the suit premises within a period of three months from the date of judgment/decree. Before considering the submissions of the parties it is necessary to mention a few facts. Shri Gulam Rasool, father of the tenant-petitioners was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises in the year 1970 at a monthly rent of Rs.60/- by the landlord-opposite party No. 1. Shri Rasool had established a Parchun shop in the said premises. The rent of the premises was enhanced from time to time and in the year 1998 a sum of Rs. 300/- per month was being paid. After the death of Sri Rasool the petitioners continued with the shop which their father had established in the tenanted premises. The landlady had two sons, namely, Rajendra Kumar, petitioner No. 2 and Anil Kumar, who was earlier employed with P.I. Financial Services as a manager. The said P.I. Financial Services was closed in 1997 whereafter aforesaid Anil Kumar became unemployed. In order to provide gainful employment to Anil Kumar, who desired to establish a medicine shop in the tenanted premises the land lady requested the tenants to vacate the premises. When her request to vacate the premises was not carried out she filed the present eviction suit, so that, the tenanted premises may be vacated and the same may be used by her unemployed son Anil Kumar for establishing the business of medicine shop. Defendants-tenant appeared in the suit and after seeking leave to contest they filed written statement in which they admitted the landlord tenant relationship but denied the claim of the plaintiffs that the shop premises was required to provide gainful employment to the younger son of the landlady Anil Kumar. In support of their case both the parties adduced oral/ documentary evidence. Plaintiffs examined as many as six witnesses and defendants examined nineteen witnesses. The trial court having considered the case of the two sides in detail with reference to both oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit under the impugned judgment and decree and held that the plaintiffs/landlord required the suit premises for their personal use so as to establish the medicine shop to gainfully employ the younger son Anil Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have assailed the impugned judgment and decree on two grounds. That perusal of the evidence of the parties including that of defendants would establish that the plaintiffs have no personal necessity as the younger son Anil Kumar is already gainfully employed in connecti