SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Revision application has been preferred under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 against the Judgment and order dated 04.04.2016 passed in Eviction Suit No. 17 of 1998 by the 2nd Munsif, Darbhanga whereby the suit has been decreed on contest in favour of plaintiffs and the defendants have been directed to vacate the suit premises within two months and to hand over possession to the plaintiffs, otherwise they will be entitled to the same by the process of the court.

3. The original plaintiff Sri Mahendra Narayan Sinha (after his death his legal heirs substituted) filed suit for eviction of the defendants (wife, sons and daughters of his brother Surendra Narayan Sinha) from the suit premises stating that, one Gobardhan Lal had three sons namely, Nagendra Narayan Lal, Surendra Narayan Sinha and Mahendra Narayan Sinha. The plaintiff claimed that in the family arrangement of 1966 the suit property fall in the share of the plaintiff. After death of his brother Surendra Narayan Sinha in 1989 as help plaintiff inducted the defendants in the suit premises and later on monthly rent of Rs. 50/-, had been fixed and paid from 01.01.1992. However, the defendants started laying false and vexatious claim over the suit land.

4. The further case of the original plaintiff was that after retirement from railway he wants to start Cottage Industry for source of income for which the suit premises and land was suitable and there is urgent need of the suit premises. The plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises but they failed to do so.

5. Hence, the plaintiff filed Eviction Suit on the ground of personal necessity stating that his need and requirement cannot be satisfied by partial eviction of the defendants from the suit premises consisting of one room, small kitchen and one verandah.

6. The defendants filed an application seeking leave to contest the eviction suit contending that partition never took place among the heirs of Gobardhan Lal with respect to the suit property. It is still joint and all have equal share therein. It is further stated that no family arrangement ever took place among the heirs of Gobardhan Lal and the defendants were never inducted as tenants and no rent was fixed or paid to the plaintiffs. It is further stated that defendants are residing in the suit premises in their own right as they have 1/3rd share in the same. Municipal holding receipts are granted in the joint names of Nagendra Narayan Lal, Surendra Narayan Sinha and Mahendra Narayan Sinha. The suit property is joint and undivided and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and there is no personal need of the suit property as claimed by the plaintiff.

7. The leave to contest application filed by the defendants was treated as written statement. Both the parties led their evidences, and the Court below after hearing the parties vide order dated 04.04.2016 decreed the suit and directed the defendants to vacate the suit premises within two months and hand over possession thereof to the plaintiff.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law on the ground that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. One cosharer cannot bring a suit for eviction against another co-sharer. He has further submitted that the finding of the court below in the impugned Judgment and conclusion is contradictory and there is no finding on partial eviction, accordingly, impugned Judgment is not sustainable. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the learned court below.

9. It is also submitted that in the partition Suit No. 97/92 the suit premises of Eviction Suit No. 17/98 was also one of the subject matter of partition in which original plaintiff of Eviction Suit was defendant no. 8 whose defence is that by amicable family settlement of 15.05.196