The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, the Indian Succession Act, and the implications of the probate case in determining the plaintiff's right to file the eviction suit.

S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioner under the proviso to Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) challenging the order of his eviction vide judgment dated 12.2.2008, by which the learned Munsif. Patna City, allowed Title Eviction Suit No. 25 of 1995.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the sole defendant-petitioner from the suit premises, namely, a shop at the ground floor of his building, on the ground of personal requirement as he wanted to do his business of export and import of pickles, ghee, coffee and garments in the said premises, for which he has already obtained licence from the authorities concerned.

3. It was further claimed by the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to one Gopi Kanodia, who had a son Vinod Krishna Kanodia and the said Vinod Krishna Kanodia had- a wife Pushpa Kanodia and three sons, namely, Uday Krishna Kanodia, Abhay Krishna Kanodia and Saday Krishna Kanodia. It was also claimed that the aforesaid owner Gopi Kanodia executed a Will dated 25.10.1971 with respect to the suit premises in favour of his daughter-in-law Pushpa Kanodia and immediately after the death of the testator, namely, Gopi Kanodia, the legatee, namely, Pushpa Kanodia filed Probate Case No. 11 of 1993 for probate of the Will, which was allowed by the competent court by order dated 5.7.1997.

4. **********

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further claimed that in the meantime on 1.9.1994 the said Pushpa Kanodia sold several shops including the suit shop by a registered deed to the plaintiff Gatrumal Kanodia and also informed the defendant about the said sale as well as the assignment of tenancy and since then the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit premises and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also asserted by the plaintiff that he had bona fide requirement of the entire suit premises for starting his business of export and import of the articles mentioned above for which he has already got due licence from the authorities concerned.

6. On the other hand, the defendant appeared and contested the suit claiming that neither the plaintiff was owner of the suit premises nor there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, nor even the plaintiff had any bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises and hence the suit was fit to be dismissed.

7. After considering the respective claims of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues for deciding the eviction suit:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

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

(iii) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has genuine and bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises?

(v) Whether the requirement of the plaintiff could be fulfilled by partial eviction of the defendant from the suit shop?

8. On the aforesaid issues, both parties led their evidence and placed their arguments before the learned court below, whereafter the learned court below after arriving at the following findings decreed the suit by the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2008 and passed an order directing the defendant to vacate the suit shop:

(a) The suit is maintainable.

(b) The plaintiff has got good cause of action for filing the suit.

(c) There is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant.

(d) The plaintiff has got bona fide and genuine personal requirement of the suit premises and his requirement would be fulfilled by eviction of the defendant from the entire suit premises and not from part thereof.

9. Against the aforesaid order of eviction passed by the learned court below, the defendant-petitioner has filed the instant civil revi