S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party in the instant case, which has been filed under the Proviso to sub-section 8 of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Apt, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity).

2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant-petitioner challenging the order of his eviction passed by the learned Munsif-I, Patna vide judgment dated 4.2.2008 decreeing Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2001, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party on contest with cost.

3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the opposite party for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement claiming to be the owner-landlord of the suit premises which was a shop room on the ground floor of his house and measured about 190 sq. ft. (8.3 ft. x 23.5 ft.) and was being occupied as a tenant by the petitioner, who was running his dental clinic therein. It was also claimed that the opposite party was himself living in a rented premises and hence he required the entire ground floor of the house, including the suit shop for starting his own business of cosmetics and bangles, etc. and also required the first floor for his residence with his family after reconstruction as he had a son and two daughters and due to financial crisis and lack of space he was not in position to marry his daughter.

4. On the other hand, the defendant- petitioner after getting leave to contest filed his written statement in the said suit claiming that he was running a dental clinic in the suit premises which was the only source of livelihood of his entire family but the plaintiff tried to forcibly oust the defendant by the help of hooligans and also lodged criminal cases against the father and elder brother of the petitioner and started demolishing the suit premises on the pretext of repairs, but due to intervention of common friends an agreement dated 8.1.1992 was executed by both the parties in which it was stated that if the opposite party constructed a market-cum- residential complex, the defendant would be accommodated in the same. It was claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff was working in a private transport agency and his son was running his own business of tea and snacks etc. and hence the plaintiff had no bona fide requirement of the suit premises.

5. The pleadings of the parties were considered by the learned court below and on their basis the following issues were settled in the eviction suit::

(i) Whether the suit as framed and filed is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action to sue?

(iii) Whether the suit is barred under Section 47 of the Specific Relief Act?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises as described in Sched- ule-ll of the plaint bona fidely and reasonably and the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on this ground?

(vj Whether partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises will satisfy the requirement of plaintiff?

(vi) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?

6. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid suit a petition under Section 15 of the Act was filed by the plaintiff and the learned court below allowed the same vide order dated 15.4.2002 directing the defendant to deposit monthly rent since half of September, 2004 as the rent of the suit premises but the defendant failed to comply the said order and hence due to the act of non-compliance by the defendant his defence against ejectment was struck off by the learned court below on 16.2.2006. It transpires that the said order attained finality and hence his defence was not to be considered.

7. In support of his claim on the aforesaid issues, the plaintiff produced four witnesses out of whom P.W. 4 was the plaintiff himself. On the other hand, the defendant produced 31 witnesses out of whom 18 were formal witnesses, namely, D