Heard learned counsel for the parties.

21. This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2011 passed by the Munsif, Muzaffarpur (East) in Eviction Suit No.41 of 2005 whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs within a period of two months failing which it would be carried out through the process of the court.

3. The suit property is a building standing on Holding No.5, Ward No.24 in the town and district of Muzaffarpur owned by one Raj Kumar Choudhary having fallen in his share by reason of a decree passed in Partition Suit No.139 of 1989. The said Raj Kumar Choudhary had given the building on rent to the father of the petitioner Late Bhaskar Prasad Mishra who was running a Homoeopathic Medical Store on the ground floor whereas the upper floor was being used for residential purpose. The default in payment of the rental by the original tenant Late Bhaskar Prasad Mishra led to filing of the eviction suit at the instance of the erstwhile owner of the property Raj Kumar Choudhary giving rise to Eviction Suit No.29 of 2002 on the grounds of personal necessity. The original tenant Bhaskar Prasad Mishra deceased during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by the petitioner and his brothers who are opposite party nos.3 and 4 in the present proceedings.

4. While the eviction suit was pending, the property in question was vended in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party nos.1 and 2 through a registered sale deed. Consequent upon the purchase, the opposite party nos.1 and 2 gave notice to the petitioner and his brothers requiring them to vacate the premises on grounds of bonafide requirement and personal necessity and upon their failure to do so, the suit in question was filed giving rise to Eviction Suit No.41 of 2005. The suit having been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, hence the present application.

5. Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma has appeared on behalf of the judgment debtor-petitioner no.1 and while not disputing the facts of the case, has contended that the transaction under which the decree-holder purchased the property, itself is fraudulent. It is further argued that the judgment-debtors are not the tenant of the plaintiff rather the tenant is one Prem Lata Mishra who incidentally happens to be the wife of the petitioner. It is thus submitted that in absence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and a suit already having been filed by the owner of the property Raj Kumar Choudhary, which is yet pending, the second suit was not maintainable.

6. In context of the issue of bonafide requirement and personal necessity of the plaintiffs, it is stated that the plaintiffs have their own house and a Medical Store and hence, there is no personal necessity requiring eviction of the tenant. It was sought to be contended that even the notice issued upon them was not valid. It is further the case of the petitioner that although the learned trial court has observed at para-31 of the judgment that Prem Lata Mishra was the tenant and even though she is not made party in the suit but yet the decree has been passed. It is thus submitted that as the tenant is not a party to the proceeding, hence, the decree is not binding on her.

7. On the issue of partial eviction, it is stated that although a finding to this effect has been recorded in para-33 of the judgment, but the trial court has merely discussed the issue in the backdrop of the shop existing on the ground floor without dealing with the matter as regarding the residential portion situated on the upper floor. It is submitted that in absence of any finding on the issue of partial eviction as regarding the residential portion, the judgment suffers from serious infirmity.

8. Mr. Verma, next dealing with the issue of personal necessity, has submitted that no evidence had been led by the plaint