S.B. Sinha, J.

These two Civil Revision Applications involving some interesting questions of law were referred to a Division Bench for hearing.

2. These applications having arisen out of the judgment dated 28.9.1989 passed by Shri V. Upadhyay, Subordinate Judge, First Court, Ranchi in Eviction Suit No. 7 of 1988, were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

3. One Jaiprakash Jalan and Abhimanyu Jalan who are the petitioners in Civil Revision Application No. 46 of 1990 (R) filed the aforementioned suit for eviction against M/s. Rambilash Madan Gopal (Petitioner in Civil Revision No. 6 of 1990 (R) for its eviction on the ground of their personal necessity from the tenanted premises consisting of a two storied building situated over M.S. Plot Nos. 1967 and parts of 1968 and 1969 being holding no. 780 appertaining to Ward No. II of Ranchi Municipal Corporation at Kaprapatti, Main Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi.

4. It is admitted that in the ground floor of suit premises, there is an open courtyard, bath room, kitchen, well, one godown, one shop room, one latrine, passage and staircase and in the first floor of the said premises there are four living rooms, varandahs and some open space.

5. The case of the plaintiffs before the court below was that they are joint owners of the suit premises and they had been living with their parents and youngest brother in a house belonging to their mother and the said brother who have been asking them to vacate the said house.

6. Plaintiff no. 1, who is an advocate allegedly owing to paucity of space had been finding difficulties to entertain his clients as also for the purpose of maintaining his Chamber and Library. It is further averred that they have also been experiencing difficulties to receive their friends and relatives who come to their place owing to paucity of space and accommodation.

7. It was further contended that the wife of the petitioner no. 1 was not pulling on well with her mother-in-law.

8. The plaintiffs further case is that the plaintiff no. 2 is also a student of law and being a prospective lawyer intends to have a library of his own. It was further contended that owing to paucity of space his marriage could not be finalised although he has attained marraigable age.

9. The defendants who are petitioners in C.R. No. 6 of 1990 (R) obtained leave of the court to contest the suit and in its written statement inter alia denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiffs and itself.

10. In paragraph 10 of the application praying for leave to contest the suit as also in paragraph 15 and 16 of its written statement the defendant contended that its eviction from a portion of the suit premises would fulfil the requirement of the plaintiffs.

11. The defendants, in the written statement also denied and/or disputed the purported bona fide requirements of the plaintiffs as mentioned in the plaint.

12. The defendants further contended that the tenanted premises was let out to them in 1944 on a rental of Rs. 150/- only. Although, the fair rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 90/- per month, but the same was illegally enhanced to Rs. 275/- per month from April, 1966 and was further enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month in December, 1969. The rent was again enhanced to Rs. 600/- from January, 1978 and to Rs. 1000/- per month from January, 1987.

13. It was further alleged that plaintiff no. 1 filed an application for determination of fail rent before the House Rent Controller, which was registered as BBC Case No. 114 of 1987 and although, the said application was withdrawn; by putting pressure upon the partners of the defendant, the plaintiff no. 1 got the monthly rent enhanced to Rs. 3000/- per month from January, 1988.

14. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs have again been coercing them to enhance the monthly rent to Rs. 6000/- per month, but as the defendants did not agree thereto, the said suit has been filed.

15. It was further