S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This civil revision has been filed by the Defendant-Petitioner under the Proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity), challenging the Order of his eviction vide Judgment dated 13th November, 2007, by which the Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda decreed Eviction Suit No. 09 of 1998.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the Plaintiff-opposite Party No. 1 for eviction against the defendant-Petitioner as well as Defendants-opposite parties 2nd set with respect to the suit house bearing holding No. 167, (new 167A), Ward No. 8 (new Ward No. 15) of Biharsharif Municipality situated in Mohalla Kamruddinganj, in the town of Biharsharif within the district of Nalanda, claiming following reliefs on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement:

(a) A decree of eviction of the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff with respect to the suit premises be passed

(b) Direction to the Defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff be passed, failing which the possession be delivered to the Plaintiff through process of the Court.

(c) A decree of injunction restraining the Defendants from changing the nature of the suit premises be passed.

(d) A decree of cost be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

(e) Any other relief or reliefs to which the Plaintiff is deemed entitled.

3. The claim of the Plaintiff was that one Lala Prasad, son of Prayag Sao had four sons, namely, Shri Krishna Prasad (Plaintiff), Chandradeo Kumar (Defendant No. 1), Manik Chandra Prasad (non-party) and Surendra Prasad (non-party). It is further claimed that by registered sale-deed dated 30th May, 1970 (Exh.8) Lala Prasad purchased the suit land in the name of his two sons, namely, Shri Krishna Prasad (Plaintiff) and Chandradeo Kumar (Defendant No. 1) and, thereafter, he constructed two buildings thereupon and had his flour mill etc. thereon. It is further claimed that there was partition between the aforesaid Lala Prasad and his sons on 15th August, 1970 with respect to all the ancestral lands including the suit premises and in the said partition Lala Prasad did not take anything and the suit premises was allotted to the exclusive share of the Plaintiff, whereas, Defendant No. 1 and his other brothers were given separate properties at Mirchaiganj and a memorandum of partition (Exh.7) was, accordingly, prepared and since then the Plaintiff remained in exclusive possession of the suit premises as absolute owner thereof.

4. It was also claimed by the Plaintiff that his father Lala Prasad died in the year 1977, where after Chandradeo Kumar v. Shri Krishn Prasad, Defendant No. 1 wanted some residential accommodation and in February, 1982 the Plaintiff inducted him as a tenant in one of his houses at the rent of Rs. 400.00 per month and since then he is living therein with his family as tenant, but subsequently Defendant No. 1 sublet portion of the suit premises to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The Plaintiff had also claimed that he had bona fide requirement of the suit premises as due to enlargement of his family his expenditure has increased, as a result of which his income from the flour mill is not sufficient for maintaining his family and hence he wanted to expand his business for which the suit premises was required, but on 24th May, 1998 the Defendants rejected the Plaintiffs request for vacating the suit premises.

5. On the other hand, Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing his written statement after permission from the Court and claimed that the suit properties including other properties are still joint and story of partition dated 15th August, 1970 is absolutely false and concocted. It was also claimed by Defendant No. 1 that two houses purchased by Lala Prasad in the names of his two sons, namely, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 by registered deed dated 30th May, 1970