Ravi Ranjan, J.

1. The petitioners, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29th of March, 2008, passed in Eviction Suit No. 4/05 by the Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda, granting a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party, have preferred this Civil Revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act").

2. Plaintiff-opposite party filed the eviction suit concerned for evicting defendants- petitioners on the ground of bona fide personal necessity and also for damages at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day from 1.8.2005 up to the date of conferring possession of the suit property upon the plaintiff. The suit property, as described in Schedule-! of the plaint, is a shop, which is 6 ft. wide and 17 ft. of length.

3. Plaintiffs case, in short, is that the suit property is his ancestral property, upon which the joint family of the plaintiff is coming into possession since long. The joint family resides on the first floor of the house concerned, whereas on the ground floor there is a small market, in which there are six shops, three facing west and other three facing east. Further case of the plaintiff is that his brother, namely, Mahendra Chaudhary, deals in vegetable business at Jharia and according to the family arrangement, he receives the rent of three shops facing west (out of the aforesaid six shops), whereas the plaintiff- opposite party receives the rent of eastern three shops for the maintenance of his family. Plaintiff himself works in a local fabric/cloth shop on monthly emolument. However, it is stated that from that meagre salary of private service now it has become difficult to maintain his family, and, thus, he requires the suit property for doing his own cloth business. It has further been disclosed in the plaint that the plaintiff alongwith his brother has let out the shop by inducting the defendants- petitioners as tenants in the year 1994 and rent was fixed at Rs. 800/- per month. A deed of lease/agreement dated 22.7.1994 was also executed in this regard. It was agreed upon that the defendants-petitioners would deposit Rs. 70,000/- as advance and they will deposit only Rs. 400/- per month out of rental fixed as aforesaid and the rest Rs. 400/- would be adjusted from the advance so deposited. The arrangement was till July 2005, which was the date of termination of the tenancy. Further case of the plaintiff is that Rs. 52,800/- out of Rs. 70,000/-, taken as advance, has been adjusted and Rs. 17,200/- has remained with the plaintiff, which he is ready to return to the defendants as the period of tenancy had already expired by July 2005. Since the plaintiff himself was in bona fide personal need of the suit property for his own business, he requested the defendants to vacate the shop concerned. However, on refusal by the defendants, the eviction suit was filed. It has further been stated in the plaint that since the disputed shop is only 6 ft. wide, the partial eviction of the tenant concerned would not serve anybodys purpose.

4. The defendants-petitioners had filed written statement. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute. However, the defendants in their written statement have refuted certain allegations made in the plaint and disputed the alleged arrangement between the plaintiff and his brother with regard to receiving rent of the shop, as claimed in the plaint. It is further stated that the plaintiff is not unemployed, rather he is in service and he does not have sufficient capital to start his own business. The defendants have accepted the deed/agreement regarding tenancy. However, it has been stated by them that at the time of negotiation for tenancy, it was agreed that the tenancy would be for eleven years and after expiry of the aforesaid period, if good relationship prevails and remains between the landlord and the tenant, then a fresh deed of tenancy would be executed. It