This civil revision application under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.B.C. Act’) has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order of eviction dated 13.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Munsif-III, Bhagalpur in Title Eviction Suit No.40 of 1992/76 of 2012 decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid eviction suit against the defendants-petitioners alleging that he is the owner of the suit property and landlord as he has purchased the same by registered sale deed dated 17.11.1981 and came in possession of the same. One Gaibi Das, who was the father of the petitioners, was inducted as tenant in the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.75/- who started manufacturing of shoes business in the suit premises in the name of ‘Harijan Shoe Factory’. The plaintiff purchased the suit premises for his own use and occupation for running cloth business as he was running his cloth business in rented premises at Sujaganj Bazar. The landlord has filed Eviction Suit No.08 of 1985 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no other place of his own in the town of Bhagalpur. The plaintiff requested Gaibi Das to vacate the suit premises but he did not vacate the same and then he died in 1988-1989.

3. The petitioners, who were defendants, filed contesting written statement. According to them, the defendants-petitioners started business in the entire premises of Holding No.3 in the name of ‘Harijan Shoe Factory’ but on account of pressure the major portion of the premises was vacated and the landlord changed the shop and the feature of the shop and converted into three portions. Late Gaibi Das had to shift his business to a small room, which is the present suit premises. The other two portions were let out to two other tenants by the landlord on higher rent but the petitioners continued to pay Rs.75/- per month. Gaibi Das was running the business under the licence issued by Labour Department in the name of Girish Ram and Uday Shankar till his death and defendant nos.1 and 2 continued the business with Abhay Kumar Das and Anand Kumar Das under the trade licence in the name of Sangeeta Devi and Chanki Devi. The suit premises is not suitable place for cloth business because it is not in Kaprapatti and is running in second part of the holding whereas third part is lying vacant since long. The defendants further alleged that the personal necessity is mere pretence. The plaintiff is running his business in most suitable and convenient place which is a big shop situated in the heart of Kaprapatti of Sujaganj Bazar.

4. The defendants further pleaded that the suit is not maintainable because of non-joinder of necessary party.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleading of the parties the learned trial court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, Specific Relief Act, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff got valid cause of action to file this suit?

(iv) Is the suit bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties?

(v) Is there landlord-tenant relationship between plaintiff and defendants?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff has bonafide personal necessity for the relief sought?

(vii) Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree of eviction and other reliefs as claimed?

6. Thereafter on the basis of the evidences produced by the parties the learned court below held that the defendants are the tenants in whose direction and control the business is being conducted, as such, the suit is not bad for non-impleading the daughters of Gaibi Das and other legal heirs as defendants in the suit. The court below also recorded the finding that the plaintiff has been able to prove the personal necessity. The court below also recorded the finding that the matter of partial eviction has also not been