S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This civil revision has been filed by defendants-petitioners under the Proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) challenging order/judgment of their eviction dated 24-08.2006 by which the learned Munsif III, Patna. decreed Eviction Suit No.59 of 1994.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole-plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for eviction of defendants-petitioners from the suit premises, namely two shop rooms detailed in Schedule I and Schedule III of the plaint which are portions of the building bearing holding no.250/204A, Circle no.7, Ward no. 10, situated at Station Road, P.S. Kotwali in the town and district of Patna on the grounds of personal necessity of the plaintiff, default in payment of rent and expiry of fixed term of tenancy.

3. The plaintiffs claim in short was that he was the owner of the entire building detailed aboe, on the first floor of which he carried hotel business in the name of M/S Bihar Niwas and on the ground floor he resided along with his family in which he had one bed room-cum-drawing room-cum-dining room-cum-study room measuring about 15 1/2 X 8 1/2 besides kitchen, latrine, bath-room and a small room in which there were three tier wooden beds for his three children, namely Kumar Chirinjiv, Kumar Abhijeet Rai and Puja Rai, who were all college going students. The plaintiff further claimed that apart, from the aforesaid portion there were two shop rooms which were part of the holding in suit in which he inducted the defendants- petitioners as tenants on oral lease for a fixed term and in evidence thereof rent notes were executed in duplicate and each of the parties retained a copy thereof and after the expiry of the said period of lease similar rent note was prepared and the last rent notes were prepared on 01.04.1993 for Schedule I shop room and on 09.04.1993 for schedule III shop room, both for a period of six months after expiry of which the said suit was filed in the year 1994.

4. The plaintiff further claimed that the rent of Schedule I was Rs.451.00 per month, whereas the rent of Schedule III was Rs.426.00 per month, but the defendants did not pay any rent from October, 1993 to August, 1994, nor he paid the electricity dues for the said shop rooms which had to be deposited by the plaintiff and hence the defendants were not only liable to be evicted on the ground of default, but were also liable to pay entire arrears of rent and electricity dues with damages.

5. The other ground taken by the plaintiff was the ground of personal necessity as he claimed that for want of sufficient accommodation, the plaintiff was using his bed room as a drawing room-cum-dining room-cum-study room also, whereas a small room was being used as a bed room for two sons and a daughter of the plaintiff who were college going students. Hence, he claimed that he required both the two shop rooms involved in the suit, which were adjacent to the residential portions, for using Schedule I as Drawing-cum- Dining Room and Schedule III for the use of his sons after which the two rooms already in possession of the plaintiff could be used as bed-rooms for the plaintiff and his daughter separately.

6. During pendency of the suit, the original tenant Sardar Darshan Singh Sachdeva died, whereafter his widow and two sons were substituted in his place who filed their written statement claiming that the suit did not come under the purview of Section 14 of the Act and one suit cannot be filed with respect to two premises for which cause of action had arisen at different times. Although the defendants admitted that they were tenants, but asserted that the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the suit premises as it originally beonged to Late Lakshmi Narain Yadav after whose death, his widow, two daughters and five sons including the plaintiff became joint owners and they authorized the plai