1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 29.6.2006 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division II, Samastipur in Eviction Suit No. 6 of 2003 by which he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-landlord-opposite parties against the tenant-defendant-petitioners.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to assail the finding of bona fide personal necessity on the ground that in paragraph no. 12 of the plaint it is stated that the husband of the plaintiff had informed the defendant-petitioners about the requirement of the suit premises by the landlady for starting Readymade Clothes business. It is submitted that subsequently in paragraph no. 14 of the plaint it is stated that Readymade clothes shop could not be started in the premises for setting up the business for the son and thus he is left without any work.

4. This Court does not find any contradiction in the statements made in the two paragraphs. It is clearly mentioned in para 12 that the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 is a Pardanaseen lady and her business and affairs are looked after by her husband, opposite party no. 2 and further the necessity of opening Readymade Clothes shop has been mentioned in paragraph no.12 and paragraph 14 merely elaborates that the same was for the purpose of son of the plaintiffs. Apart from the fact that there is no contradiction between the two paragraphs, under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, it is permissible for a landlord to take such a ground of personal necessity for starting business by the son of the landlord. Thus, there is no merit in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next forcefully contends that in the present matter there is no finding regarding partial eviction which is a mandatory provision under the BBC Act and for the said reasons the judgment and decree of the court below cannot stand. It is pointed out that no issue was framed at all with respect to partial eviction as to whether the personal necessity of the plaintiff-opposite parties would be satisfied by such partial eviction. It is further submitted that apart from not framing the issue, there is also no discussion on the said point in any part of the judgment.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the suit premises is a single room it has been held by several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court that it is essential for the court below to look into the fact as to the size of the said room and as to whether the same can be divided for separate business of the landlord or not dependent upon the bona fide need of the landlord for the suit premises in question. In support of the said proposition learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Murari Prasad vs. Mitar Singh: AIR 1994 Supreme Court 489, in para-3 of which it has been held as follows:

"It is obvious that the High Court proceeded on the basis that a presumption arises that where the premises comprises only of one room, the proviso to clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) to S.11 of the Act is not attracted since its application is not practicable. Obviously, this assumption is fallacious since it pre-supposes indivisibility of a premises comprised of one room, irrespective of its dimensions and even when the room is big enough to permit division to satisfy the needs of the landlord as well as the tenant, it is a question of fact in each case whether such a partial eviction can be made or not. This enquiry has to be made by the court after reaching the conclusion that the landlords requirement for occupation of the premises set up by him has been made out. In failing to do so, the courts below overlooked this statutory requirement."

7. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that it is evident from the description of t