Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. – This revision petition under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short ‘BBC Act’) has been filed on behalf of the defendant petitioner for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2015 and 23.9.2015 passed by learned Munsif-II, Vaishali at Hajipur in Eviction Suit No.3 of 2008 by which and where under he decreed the aforesaid suit on contest and directed the petitioner defendant to vacate the disputed shop within 30 days and to hand over possession of the same to the plaintiff opposite party no.1, failing which plaintiff opposite party no.1 shall be entitled to get the aforesaid shop vacated through the process of the court.

2. Plaintiff opposite party no.1 filed the above stated Eviction Suit No.3 of 2008 against the defendant petitioner on the ground of personal necessity claiming, himself, to be landlord of the disputed shop. The plaintiff opposite party averred in his plaint that the defendant petitioner was inducted as tenant on 20.2.1995 by his elder brother Satya Narayan Sah on monthly rent of Rs.350/- and on the same day, one deed of rent was also executed by the defendant petitioner in favour of aforesaid Satya Narayan Sah. The aforesaid deed of rent was handed over to Satya Narayan Sah and after that defendant petitioner started a jewellery shop in the disputed shop and started paying rent to the above stated Satya Narayan Sah. However, in family partition, disputed shop fell in the share of plaintiff opposite party no.1 and the aforesaid fact was communicated to the defendant petitioner by Satya Narayan Sah and thereafter, defendant petitioner agreed to pay rent of shop to the plaintiff opposite party no.1 and similarly, Satya Narayan Sah handed over deed of rent to plaintiff opposite party no.1. Petitioner defendant started paying rent to plaintiff defendant no.1 but in the month of February, 2007, he stopped from making payment of rent to the plaintiff opposite party no.1 when the plaintiff opposite party no.1 asked petitioner defendant to vacate the suit premises as plaintiff opposite party no.1 was in bonafide need of disputed shop because his son wanted to open readymade garments shop in the suit premises. Plaintiff opposite party no.1 gave legal notice to the petitioner defendant but even then petitioner defendant did not vacate the suit premises. Thereafter, plaintiff opposite party no.1 brought the above stated Eviction Suit No.3 of 2008.

3. Petitioner defendant appeared before the court below and filed written statement pleading therein that in the year 1964 father of plaintiff opposite party no.1 had let out shop in question to his father on the monthly rent of sum of Rs.10/- and since then his father was doing business in the above stated shop and after death of his father, petitioner defendant started his business in the aforesaid shop. However, father of plaintiff opposite party no.1 took huge amount for renovation of his house and subsequently, having got renovated the house, elder brother of the plaintiff gave shop in question to him in the year 1995 on the monthly rent of Rs.105/- but no deed of rent was executed and in course of time rent of the shop in question was increased upto Rs.350/-. Defendant petitioner admitted that in the family partition, plaintiff opposite party no.1 got shop in question in his share and the aforesaid fact was communicated to him by Satya Narayan Sah and thereafter, he started paying rent of shop in question to the plaintiff opposite party no.1. Petitioner defendant averred in his written statement that son of plaintiff opposite party no.1 is not unemployed rather he has one shop at Mahua Bazar and the plaintiff opposite party no.1 is not in bonafide need of the shop in question. Further petitioner defendant took stand that plaintiff defendant 1st party took Rs.3,00,000/- from him for selling the shop in question but plaintiff opposite party no.1 did not execute absolute sale deed as ye