This Revision application preferred under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010 and 26.08.2010 respectively passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 6 of 2007, whereby learned Munsif, Katihar has been pleased to decree the suit admitting the plea of personal necessity of the plaintiff-opposite party and directing the defendant-petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises described in Schedule-A of the plaint to the plaintiff-opposite party within one month of the date of the order, failing which the decree would be executed through the process of the court.

2. Brief facts of the matter is that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in a shop owned by the plaintiff-opposite party situated at Municipal Survey Plot No. 136 ‘gha’ and ‘cha’, Municipal Survey Khata No. 38 bearing Municipal Holding No. 213 ‘P’ situated at Mauza Durgapur, Mohalla-Amlatola in the Town and District of Katihar and admeasuring 20ft. x 13 ½ ft.

3. For the sake of convenience, I shall be referring to the position of the parties as occurring at the stage of trial.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the shopping complex in which the shop in question is situated belonged to Eqbal Warish, Amir Ali and Hussain Warish. The complex consisted of several shops of which the shops bearing Municipal Survey Plot No. 136 ‘ka’ ‘kha’ ‘gha’ and ‘cha’ was recorded in the name of the ancestors of the aforementioned owners. The defendant was inducted in one of the shops by the erstwhile owner Eqbal Warish on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/-. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the owner Ekbal Warish had another shop situated towards adjoining South and which was taken on a monthly rental by the plaintiff and who had been carrying on his business in the said shop. The plaintiff and his brother Jai Lal Singh jointly purchased the shops in question through three registered sale deeds executed on 05.11.1998, 21.06.1999 and 06.07.1999 after making payment of the consideration amount and whereafter they became the owners of the same. Consequent upon the purchase of the shop in question by the plaintiff and his brother, the rentals of the shop held by the defendant was enhanced from Rs. 200/- to 300/- and thereafter to Rs. 400/- which was paid sometimes in cash and sometimes by money order by the defendant to the plaintiff. A mutual partition is said to have taken place on 06.03.2005 and whereafter the plaintiff was allotted the shop in which the defendant was inducted as a tenant as well as the shop premises in which the plaintiff had been carrying on his business together with 6 feet wide passage lying West and whereafter the plaintiff came in exclusive possession over the said property. As the elder son of the plaintiff Rajnish Bharti was required to be settled thus a request was made by the plaintiff to the defendant to vacate the premises but the defendant instead of vacating the premises, filed a petition under Section 20 of the Act for fixation of fair rent.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances where the defendant was not willing to vacate the suit premises despite request of the plaintiff who needed the same for his elder son that the suit in question came to be filed on 17.4.2007 seeking a relief of eviction of the defendant no. 1, under Section 14 read with Section 11(1)(c) of the Act giving rise to Title (Eviction) Suit No. 6 of 2007. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement challenging the grounds of personal necessity as invoked by the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff alongwith his brother had purchased the suit premises as well as the other shops and thus the story of expansion of the business and induction of the son which is stated to be ground for personal necessity, was not correct. According to the defendant the son of the plaintiff, Rajnish Bharti was already settled in Delhi and ca