S.N. Jha, J.

In this application under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the main question for consideration is whether, in a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity, a fresh attornment by the tenant to the land-lord's transferee is necessary.

2. The plaintiff opposite party filed Eviction suit No. 23 of 1986 with respect to the premises, situate in Darbhanga town, as described in schedule A of the plaint, stating that he is the exclusive owner of the suit premises by virtue of purchase under registered sale issued dated 16.1.1986 executed by Kamalendu Biswas. He belongs to a trading family and the purchase was made for the purpose of doing business in crockery. Notice was sent to the defendant-petitioner on 25.5.1986, who was in occupation of the suit premises from before, asking him to vacate the same on the ground of personal necessity. The defendant, however, did not vacate and hence the suit.

3. The defendant's case, in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of appreciating the point urged and arising for decision, is that he was a monthly tenant of one Kalyan Kumar Biswas, who had already filed Eviction Suit No. 10 of 1985 for his eviction, which was still pending. No notice of the transfer of the premises said to have been made on 16.1.1986 was given to him and in the absence of any attornment, no fresh tenancy was created vis-a-vis the plaintiff and he was not the landlord and entitled to evict the defendant. According to the defendant further, the plaintiff bad no personal necessity for the suit premises since the family of the plaintiff had big residential house in the main marketing centre of Darbhanga town, which was most suitable for the proposed business.

4. The trial court took evidence of both sides and came to the conclusion that the landlord and tenant relationship exists between the parties and that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own occupation reasonably and in good faith. Since no finding regarding partial eviction in terms of the proviso to clause (c) of section 11(1) of the Act, had been recorded, while admitting this application on 3.8.1990, this Court directed the trial court to frame a specific issue in that regard and to transmit its finding after taking necessary evidence and hearing the parties. The trial court, after necessary enquiry and on the basis of evidence including report of the Commissioner, has held in its finding dated 21.12.1990 that the necessity of the plaintiff cannot be satisfied except by eviction of the defendant from the entire suit premises. The petitioner, accordingly, has challenged the aforesaid finding by way of a supplementary affidavit, which aspect I will deal with after examining the main question arising for decision, as noticed above.

5. Mr. Raghib Ahsan, appearing for the petitioner, although initially attempted to raise a number of contentions challenging the correctness and legality of the order of eviction but he laid emphasis on only one of them, namely, that the finding of the trial court in regard to the existence of land lord tenant relationship between the parties is not in accordance with law. According to him, in the absence of notice of transfer of the ownership of the premises in favour of the plaintiff and attorement by the defendant in his (plaintiff's) favour, no landlord tenant relationship between the parties could be created. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied on a decision in the case of John Nadjarian v. E.F. Trist (AIR 1945 Bombay, 399).

6. Mr. Chunni Lal, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, has drawn my attention to the notice (Exhibit 1) sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant's reply thereto (Exhibit 1/A), in order to show that the plea of absence of attornment was false. According to learned counsel, the defendant had admitted payment of rent in favour of the plaintiff in the very