V.Nath, J.

Mr. Devendra Prasad Sharma, advocate, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that he has no instruction from the petitioner and has prayed for adjournment. However, Mr. Rajendra Narayan, the learned senior counsel, has pointed out that this revision application arises out of an eviction suit filed in the year 2003on ground of personal necessity and the order of stay of execution case has been obtained by the petitioner as far back as on 05.04.2010. It has been further pointed out that on the joint prayer of the parties, this matter has been fixed for hearing today on priority basis and in this background, the prayer has been made to hear and dispose of this revision application on merits.

2. It appears that by order dated 05.04.2010 passed in this revision application, further proceeding of execution case, initiated for delivery of possession over the suit premises, was stayed on the basis of the prayer made in I.A.No. 3031 of 2010 filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the order was passed to consider the said interlocutory application at the time of admission. When this revision application was being admitted for hearing, both the parties prayed for early hearing and disposal of the revision application as it arose out of an eviction proceeding on ground of personal necessity and the lower court records had already been received and all the parties had appeared. Keeping in view the nature of the proceeding and the urgency inherent in it, the prayer was allowed and the revision application was directed to be placed “for hearing” today i.e. 20.04.2012.

3. This revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1992(hereinafter referred to as BBC Act) against the judgment and order of eviction dated 09.11.2009 passed by Munsif II, Bhagalpur in Eviction Case No. 26/03 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party seeking eviction of the defendant-petitioner has been decreed.

4. Filtering unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that the opposite party as plaintiff filed the eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity alone with the statement that the suit shop has been allotted to his share in family arrangement. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is educated but an unemployed person and has got no other suitable shop except the suit shop for starting his business of selling books. It is further case of the plaintiff that his request for vacating the suit premises through legal notice sent by him had been declined by the defendant compelling him to file this suit.

5. The defendant-petitioner appeared in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party on the ground that he was not his landlord. It is the further case of the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiff-opposite party has already got a shop for selling books by the name and style “SANJAY BOOK STORES” in the same building and has further got two other shops which are vacant. The defendant-petitioner has also made statement that he has paid rent regularly and is not in default and has also accepted that he has started sending the rent through money order from November, 2003 and has uptil date remitted the same to the plaintiffs. The bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff has been specifically denied in the written statement.

6. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties the trial court framed issues including the main issues with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant and the personal necessity of the plaintiff as well as partial eviction.

7. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court has come to the finding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant. It has been further found that the plaintiff has the bona fide personal necessity of the suit shop for establishing his