Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J.

1. This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 passed by Shri Subhash Chandra Chaurasia, Subordinate Judge-VII,- Patna in Eviction Suit no. 27 of 1995 whereby the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-VII, Patna has been pleased to pass decree in favour of plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit house.

2. The brief fact is that the plaintiff-opposite party Smt. Premlata Sinha filed Title Suit no. 27 of 1995 for a decree of eviction against petitioners-defendants from the suit premises described in Schedule -1 of the plaint. The sole ground on which the eviction suit was preferred was personal necessity of the plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that she is the owner and landlord of the suit house. The husband of the plaintiff was in government service, who retired in the year 1992. After retirement of her husband the suit house was required for the residence of the plaintiff as plaintiff had no other house within Patna Municipal Corporation. Her husband also did not possess any exclusive house except 1/5th share in his small ancestral house situated at 78 S.K. Nagar, Patna which was not sufficient for accommodation of the plaintiffs family. Further case of the plaintiff was that in December, 1984 the suit premises was let out to the defendants on monthly rent at Rs. 4000.00 for a fixed period, which has already expired. The defendant no.1 is running a Doctors clinic in the said suit house. After expiry of lease period the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises who assured the plaintiff to vacate the same in due course but did not vacate. It is further said that the defendant had already constructed his own house in Doctors Colony at Raja Bazar and had got another house at Mithapur B area, besides his own clinic at Frazer Road, Patna, as such due to the eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, no inconvenience will be caused to the defendants. It is further said that the suit house is a double-storyed building which has two bed rooms at first floor and at the ground floor there is one hall, kitchen, store room and bath room, so the entire house is required to meet the bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff. It is further said that the defendants in spite of giving assurance to vacate the suit house did not vacate the suit house, as such the necessity of filing of the suit arose.

4. It appears from perusal of the record that initially the suit was brought against petitioner-defendant no.l only but later on petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were also impleaded as defendant nos.2 and 3, respectively, and two sets of written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants making more or less similar pleadings in both the written statements.

5. The case of the defendants as made out in both the written statements is that the suit as framed is not maintainable. The plaintiff has got no cause of action, the suit is barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and also suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. Further contention is that the plaintiff has already entered into an agreement for sale of the suit house and the surrounding lands with defendant no.3, M/s Ramesh Chandra Associates and its partners and with M/s Neuro Electro Diagnostic Centre under three different agreements for sale for a total consideration of Rs. 15,00,000.00 (Fifteen lakhs) after accepting advance earnest money amounting to Rs. 2,50,000.00 out of the said total consideration money and in part performance of the contract the plaintiff put the purchaser (defendant no.3) in possession of the suit property and since that date there is no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants. It is stated that the said vendee i.e. Ramesh Chandra Associates and its partner and M/s Neuro Electro Diagnostic Centre had already filed Title Suit No. 355 of 1993 for spe