The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement to consider partial eviction under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, and the court's authority to remand a case for additional evidence and clarification on essential issues.

1. The plaintiffs-appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Khagaria in Title Eviction Appeal No. 32 of 2011 by which the judgment dated 5.11.2011 and decree dated 19.11.2011 passed by learned Munsif, Khagaria in Title Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2006 has been set aside and the case has been remanded to the learned Munsif for deciding the case after taking additional evidence on the issues framed by the learned appellate court.

2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed Title Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2006 for a decree of eviction of the defendant-respondent from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of more than two months arrears of rent and on the ground of personal necessity and a decree for arrears of rent from January, 2006 to August, 2006 to be recovered from the defendant-respondent and to be paid to the plaintiffs-appellants.

3. The defendant contested the case and denied the relationship between landlord and the tenant and further asserted that the Kirayanama was forged. The defendant has claimed that he has purchased the suit premises and the plaintiffs have no concern whatsoever with the suit property.

4. After framing of issues and after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, defendant filed Title Eviction Appeal No. 32 of 2011. At the time of final hearing, a petition dated 1.12.2012 was filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant under Order 41 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure mentioning therein that the trial court has not considered the point of partial eviction and Kirayanama (Ext.2) is the forged document and it is necessary to test the genuineness by an Expert and he is ready to bear the expense and lastly, prayed to remand the case in the court below for deciding the suit afresh.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with law. The order of remand has been made without any jurisdiction.

6. He has also submitted that after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, learned Munsif has come to the finding that there is existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The appellate court below has failed to take into consideration the facts that the plaintiff had filed a petition dated 29.8.2011 before the learned Munsif for examination of signature of the defendant on the Kirayanama which was resisted by the defendant who refused to give specific signature for the purpose of examination and verification of his signature by an expert on frivolous ground that the affixed signature on Kirayanama was not his signature and as such an adverse inference could rightly be drawn against him. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Another, 2013 (1) PLJR 48 (SC).

7. He has further submitted by referring paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment that the petition dated 1.12.2012 filed on behalf of defendant-respondent no. 1 under Order 41 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code has been considered prior to hearing the appeal in which it was contended that the learned Munsif has not decided on the point of partial eviction which is a mandatory requirement of law and Ext. 2, the Kirayanama is a forged document which does not bear the signature of defendant-respondent. He has further submitted that the suit was filed for decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment and personal necessity. Since it has been held that there has been default in payment of rent, as such there was no requirement to consider the point whether the partial eviction was required or not. Learned Appellate Court has further directed to take additional evidence which was also not required. Since the appellate court has not considered the appeal on merit and has not held that th