1. The sole defendant-petitioner has filed this Civil Revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity).

2. This Civil Revision is directed against the order of eviction of the sole defendant-petitioner passed by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Purnea, vide judgment dated 10th of March, 2010 in the Eviction Suit Nos. 8 of 1998/8 of 2005, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party.

3. This matter has travelled upto this High Court twice on earlier occasion. The defendant-petitioner had challenged the judgment of eviction passed in the suit earlier in Civil Revision No. 479 of 2007. The same was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration on the ground that there was non-consideration of the evidence of D.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 as well as Exts.-B and C series in the concerned judgment. Thereafter, again the suit was heard and was decided and again the defendant-petitioner was ordered to vacate the suit premises. The impugned order was again challenged in Civil Revision No. 1112 of 2008 on the ground that the direction of this Court had not been complied in clear terms. The matter was yet again remanded back for fresh consideration specifically for consideration of the evidence of D.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 as well as Exts.-B and C series. Thereafter, the matter has again been heard and decided by the court below and, by the impugned judgment, the defendant-petitioner has yet again been ordered to vacate the suit premises.

4. Shorn of details, the necessary facts for consideration of the controversy in question are as follows:

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant-petitioner is month to month tenant of 6 x 16 shop of the suit premises described in the Schedule-A of the plaint, under the plaintiff, who is sole owner of the suit property, upon payment of monthly rental of Rs. 360/-. Plaintiff claims that he is a young educated unemployed person having earning of Rs. 6,000/- per month received as rent deposited by various tenants of the premises in which the concerned shop of the defendant-petitioner is also situated. He has got one son and two daughters and for education and maintenance of his family his income of Rs. 6,000/- per month is meagre and, as such, he wants to start a business of the readymade garments in the suit premises wherein the defendant-petitioner is running a tailoring shop as that is the best and suitable shop. Plaintiff claims that the area of the suit shop being 6 x 16 only, his purpose would not be served by partial eviction of the defendant-petitioner. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested the defendant-petitioner to vacate the suit premises, however, no heed was paid to his request. Thus, the present suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant- petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff himself.

5. The defendant-pdtitioner has contested the suit by filing written statement and leading evidence.

6. It has been claimed by the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the suit property. However, he has not disclosed the names of his other co-sharers. It is further claimed that the size of the suit premises has been reduced by three feet from south upon the cost of Rs. 10,000/- incurred by the defendant. However, the defendant has admitted to have been inducted as a tenant in the suit premises. The defendant claimed that he had paid Rs. 25,000/- and again Rs. 15,000/- to the plaintiff, which are yet to be refunded by him. The claim of personal requirement of the plaintiff of the suit premises has also been refuted by the defendant alleging that the plaintiff is having good source of income from other tenants and also from dairy farm and his earnings is not less than Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is claimed that the plaintiff has taken a loan from the State Bank of India for runni