Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. This Civil Revision Application has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on behalf of the tenant/defendant/petitioner for setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the Munsif, Sheohar in Eviction Suit No.03/2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has decreed the Eviction Suit in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of personal necessity.

3. The plaintiff’s case in brief, is that plaintiff purchased the suit property and constructed rooms for the purpose of establishing a market (known as Bhukhlu Sah market). The defendant/petitioner approached the plaintiff/respondent to let out the room to him for establishing a printing press and after negotiation, the plaintiff/opposite party let out the suit premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The plaintiff due to personal requirement for godown to expand his own business and as such needed the tenanted premises in good faith for personal necessity and requested the defendant to vacate the tenanted premises but the defendant is not ready to vacate the premises despite service of legal notice on defendant through speed post on 24.01.2017 and lastly on 29.07.2008. Thereafter, the defendant stopped payment of monthly rent.

4. In written statement defendant-tenant has denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is stated that suit property is not the self-acquired property of the plaintiff and it is jointly acquired by the plaintiff, his brother (Ram Babu Sah) and his mother (Sumitra Devi) and there is no personal acquisition of the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the defendant never executed document on 25.12.2005 which is forged and fabricated. The defendant was forced to sign or write on blank stamp paper. He had taken suit property on rent from the brother of plaintiff i.e. Ram Babu Sah in the year 2002 and executed Kirayanama on 01.08.2002 at monthly rental of Rs.500/-. Ram Babu Sah has got this property through Yadast Batwara between brother and mother on 20.05.2000. The defendant started a printing press and paying monthly rent Rs.500/- to Ram Babu Sah.

5. The Trial Court on the basis of pleading framed necessary issues for determination by the Court and having considered the evidence, came to the conclusion that plaintiff has rented his premises to the defendant and it clearly established landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The Trial Court observed that even the brother of plaintiff Ram Babu Sah who is examined as DW-6 has not mentioned the Yadast batwara in his examination-in-chief. The Trial Court has further held that the suit premises reasonably and in good faith required by the plaintiff for his personal necessity and accordingly decreed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises within 60 days from the date of decree. Hence, the present revision.

6. The power under the proviso to Section 14 (8) of the Act of this Court is limited to extent of seeing as to whether the order of eviction is according to law or not. For this limited purpose, the Court can reappraise the evidence. However, it cannot reappraise the evidence as an Appellate Court and will not interfere with the order on the ground that on appreciation of evidence a different view can be taken. In other words, the power of this Court is not wide as of an Appellate Court nor it is as limited as of revisional Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus this Court will interfere in case it is found that the order is based on no evidence or the Court below has ignored the material evidence, which has affected the findings or the findings are perverse, unreasonable or having been arrived at without considering the statutory