The judgment emphasized the importance of considering partial eviction when a plea based on personal necessity is raised for eviction of a tenant, as mandated by the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

Heard Mr. Amresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner and Mr. Pramod Manbansh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-opposite party no.1.

2. This civil revision application under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2011passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Samastipur in Eviction Suit No.04 of 2008, whereby the learned trial court has been pleased to order for eviction of the defendant who is petitioner before this Court requiring him to vacate the suit premise within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession of the same through the process of the Court.

3. The eviction suit in question was instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for a decree of eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premise, which is a shop situated in Ward No.8 (old), 14 (new), Mauza- Maghardahi, Holding No.245 AC Pant having an area of 16’ east-west and 10’.9” north-south. The shop belongs to the plaintiff and who inducted the defendant as a tenant in the year 1984. The defendant is running a shoe store in the said shop. It is stated that initially the tenancy was under a Kirayanama dated 15.12.1999 for a period of 11 months but the defendant despite lapse of the period stipulated in Kirayanama continued in tenancy. The plaintiff with a view to settle his only son, namely, Sudipto Das, who is an educated unemployed requested the defendant to vacate the shop in January, 2008. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant after giving assurance initially stopped making payment of rent and thereafter refused to vacate the same and hence the suit in question was instituted.

4. The shop in question was given in tenancy to the father of the present petitioner, namely, Ram Dev Ram who deceased during the pendency of the suit and has been substituted by the present petitioner and opposite party nos.2 to 6. The original defendant Ram Dev Ram appeared in the suit in response to the summons and after seeking leave in terms of section 14(4) of the Act filed written statement contesting the plea of personal necessity and bona-fide requirement set out by the plaintiff for maintaining the suit. On the basis of rival pleadings the issues were framed. Of the issues so framed, issue nos.3 and 4 relatable to bona-fide requirement of the plaintiff to maintain the suit on grounds of personal necessity would be relevant for the matter in contest. The learned trial court having considered the submissions of the plaintiff supporting his plea of bona-fide requirement and personal necessity for the settlement of his only son who was sitting unemployed and in absence of any evidence led by the defendant to prove to the contrary, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and hence the present civil revision application.

5. Mr. Amresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the defendant-petitioner while the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 has been represented by Mr. Pramod Manbansh. Mr. Verma reiterating the submissions made by the defendant in the written statement has tried to contest the plea of bona-fide requirement of the plaintiff to maintain the suit, inter alia, on grounds that the purpose for which the plaintiff is seeking eviction i.e. for settlement of his son who wants to open a coaching centre in the shop, is a mere pretext for eviction inasmuch as the place is neither suitable for running a coaching centre nor the size of the shop is such that it can be termed suitable for the said purpose. He has further submitted that the plaintiff has himself deposed that his son is engaged in taking tuitions and thus prima-facie there is no need for the shop inasmuch as the son cannot be said to be sitting idle. He further submits that initially the father of