Khatim Reza, J. – Heard Mr. R. S. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma assisted by Mr. Shreyash Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This Civil Revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as BBC Act) against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010 passed by learned Munsif- 1st, Darbhanga in Eviciton Suit No. 9 of 2004 by which eviction of the defendant/petitioner has been sought from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity alone, which was decreed by the learned Munsif- Ist, Darbhanga upon finding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants and that the plaintiff has been able to prove the personal necessity as pleaded and also decided the question of partial eviction in favour of plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the land and house bearing Holding No. 33(old) / 673 (New) is standing over Municipal Plot no. 29272. The description of the suit land was mentioned in Schedule-1 of the plaint which was acquired by Late Bhuwaneshwar Prasad, the father of the plaintiff, by registered sale deed dated 07.11.1966 having area of 1 katha 11 dhurs, out of which 1 katha 6 dhurs is the suit premises fully described in Schedule-1 of the plaint which was possessed and recorded in the name of one Most. Sarojni Devi. After her death, Vishwanath Mukharjee son of Sarojni Devi sold the aforesaid property 1 katha 11 dhurs to Bhuwaneshwar Prasad, who is the father of the plaintiff vide Exhibit-2 and put the father of the plaintiff in possession. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 are sons of Late Vishwanath Mukharjee whereas defendant no. 4 is his widow. On the same day i.e. on 07.11.1966, Kirayanama (Exhibit-3) regarding 1 katha 6 dhurs out of purchased property was executed in favour of defendant no. 1, Shivnath Mukharjee in proof of tenancy on the pretext that the sister of defendant no. 1 was to be married and they have no shelter to live at that time and thus month to month tenancy lease was executed. The said Kirayanama was witnessed by Vishwanath Mukharjee, the father of defendant nos. 1 to 3 and husband of defendant no. 4 and one of his son namely, Bhola Nath Mukharjee, who had died subsequently. The Kirayanama was for month to month tenancy for the monthly rent of Rs. 43/-.

4. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 (Shivnath Mukharjee) failed to pay the arrears of rent and became the defaulter and as such, the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 1974 against defendant no. 1 and his father (Vishwanath Mukharjee) for eviction of the defendants as well as for recovery of arrears of rent. Ultimately, the said suit was compromised and the compromise petition was signed by defendant no. 1, Shivnath Mukharjee and his father, namely, Vishwanath Mukharjee on 20.11.1976 (Exhibit-8) and by the said compromise, defendant no. 1 and his father acknowledged and admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and it was categorically admitted that defendant no. 1 is the tenant of the plaintiff and they compromised to pay the entire arrears of rent. The said suit was compromised and the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise by order dated 22.11.1976 (Exhibit-7) by learned Additional Munsif-1st, Darbhanga and decree was prepared on 06.12.1976 (Exhibit-7/A). Since compromise, the relation between the plaintiff and defendants was cordial. Recently, the intention of the defendant became malafide and as such, they intentionally failed to make payment of rent. It is further pleaded that the rent of the suit premises was time to time enhanced nominally and the rent is Rs. 100/- per month because of cordial relationship though the rent should have been more according to the market rate.

5. It is further pleaded that the wife of defendant no. 1 purchased another small house but defendant no. 1 als