The duty of the court to give a finding on the question of partial eviction as per the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, and the weightage given to the evidence of the plaintiffs in determining personal necessity.

M. Y. Eqbal, J. - This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.97 passed by 2nd Munsif, Siwan in Eviction suit no. 12/94 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-opposite parties on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of expiry of period of lease and also on the ground of personal necessity.

3. The case of the plaintiffs inter alia is that the suit premises was let out to the defendant for a period of 11 months and even after expiry of fixed period the defendant has been continuing in possession. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs required the suit premises for carrying on business for himself or for members of their family. The plaintiffs' case is that they have no shop suitable to start the business. The plaintiffs, accordingly requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises but inspite of repeated request the premises was not vacated.

4. The defendant-petitioner appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. Besides other defence the defendant's case is that the suit premises was not let out for a fixed period of 11 months rather the defendant is continuing occupation of the premises as month to month tenant. As regards, personal necessity, the defendant's case is that the plaintiffs have no capital to start business of readymade cloths. It is further stated that the plaintiff no.1 is in service and plaintiff no.2 already carries on business. It is also denied that he was ever requested by the plaintiffs to vacate the premises.

5. The learned court below framed following issues.

1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

2. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit?

3. Is the suit barred by the principle of estoppel and acquisience?

4. Was the tenancy with respect to suit premises for a limited period of 11 months?

5. Does the plaintiffs require the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for their personal use and occupation?

6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for eviction?

7. What relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled?

6. Issues no. 4, 5 and 6 have been discussed together by the court below who came to a finding that the plaintiffs require the suit premises bonafide and in good faith.

7. I have gone through the judgment passed by the court below and also perused the pleadings of the parties and deposition, copies of which have been produced by the counsels appearing for the parties. From perusal of the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, it appears that all the witnesses have consistently supported the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff no.2 is unemployed and he wants to carryon business. On the other hand, from perusal of the evidence of defendant, who was examined as D.W. 1, it appears that defendant made out a case that plaintiff no.2 is employed in some hospital. There is no such pleading of the defendant in the written statement. However this witness in cross-examination, has stated that he has nothing to show that the plaintiff no.2 is in fact employed.

8. On consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the parties, I am of the opinion that the evidence of the plaintiffs can be given more weightage than the evidence of the defendant. I further do not find any strong reason to differ with the finding arrived at by the court below with regard to bona fide and personal necessity of the plaintiffs.

9. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff no.2 subsequently got employment in hospital and that fact was introduced at the relevant stage. Learned counsel further submitted that since it was a subsequent event the defendant was not required to amend the pleading. I do not agree to accept the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. If any material fact subsequently came to the notice of the parties at the stage of the trial of the suit then without amending the pleadings, evidence to that