1. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs-decree holders-respondents 1st set-petitioners challenging order dated 23.7.2007, by which learned Additional District Judge-cum-F.T.C.-IV, Darbhanga allowed Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, set aside order dated 27.6.2005 passed in Execution Case No. 19 of 1993 and remanded the matter to the executing court for fresh consideration and decision on the application filed by the sole intervenor- appellant-opposite party under Order XXI Rules 98 and 99, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity).

2. This matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 30 of 1985. which was filed by the petitioners against the tenants Zubaida Khatoon and others (not party to this civil revision) for their eviction on the ground of personal necessity under the provision of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). In the said suit, the defendants appeared and contested.

3. During the pendency of the eviction suit, the opposite party filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code for adding him as a party to the eviction suit claiming to be a co-sharer alongwith the plaintiffs in the suit premises. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 24.4.1987, which was challenged by the opposite party in Civil Revision No. 579 of 1987. This Court, after considering the matter, rejected the aforesaid civil revision by order dated 7.3.1991 holding that the opposite party was not a necessary party and a third party right/title is not relevant for deciding an eviction suit under the Act.

4. It transpires that, thereafter, the defendants of the eviction suit filed an application in the eviction suit on 30.1.1992 stating that on 1.11.1989 he had handed over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs, who in turn had given the possession thereof to the opposite party (who was not a party to the suit). The said application was kept on record.

5. In the said eviction suit, both the plaintiffs (petitioners) as well as the defendants (not party to this revision) filed their respective pleadings and led their evidence, in which 22 witnesses and Ext.-1 series to Ext.-9 were adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, whereas, 11 witnesses and Exts.-A to I were adduced on behalf of the defendants, whereafter arguments were also advanced on behalf of both the said parties, after considering which the learned Munsif-I, Darbhanga, decreed Eviction Suit No. 30 of 1985 by his judgment and decree dated 29.5.1993 after holding that the evidence produced did not prove that the tenants-defendants had handed over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had handed over its possession to any third party and that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiffs and defendants and that the plaintiffs had fully proved their bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises reasonably and in good faith. In the said judgment, it was specifically found that none of the evidence satisfactorily proved that the defendants had ever handed over the suit premises to the plaintiffs, whereas, the plaintiffs were able to prove by documentary evidence that the defendants were throughout in possession of the suit premises.

6. The said judgment and decree of eviction of the trial court was challenged by the defendants-tenants in Civil Revision No. 1475 of 1993 and a Bench of this High Court vide its order dated 10.12.1993 allowed the said revision application and remanded the matter back to the trial court. The said order of the High Court was challenged by the plaintiffs-petitioners in S.L.P. No. 2225 of 1994, which was allowed by the Honble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 7.10.1994 and the order of the High Court was set aside and that of the trial court in the eviction suit was restored