R.K. Merathia, J.-This Civil Revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 29.11.2006 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 17 of 2004 by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Dmmka decreeing the suit filed by the opposite party against the petitioner.

2. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the petitioners-defendants-tenants submitted that in view of Clause 7 of the lease deed the opposite party-plaintiff-landlord was bound to renew the lease, though on mutual terms, and therefore, expiry of period of tenancy could not be a ground to pass order of eviction against the petitioners. He further submitted that the requirement of the opposite party was not bona fide and in any event any such requirement could be substantially satisfied by evicting the petitioner from a part of the suit premises and allowing it to continue occupation of the part of the premises.

3. This Title (Eviction) Suit was instituted by the opposite party-landlord, against the petitioners-tenants, under the provisions of Section 11 (1)(c) i.e. on the grounds of personal requirement of the landlord and (e) on the ground of expiry of period of tenancy.

4. According to the landlord a notice dated 13.9.2004 was given to the tenant, after expiry of the period of lease to vacate the suit premises on the ground that the period of lease had expired and he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. According to the tenants, a reply dated 5.10.2004 was sent to the said notice, saying, inter alia, that as per Clause 7 of the lease deed, the tenants are legally entitled to continue in possession of the suit premises and the landlord is bound to execute a fresh lease with fresh terms and conditions. Similar stands were taken by the parties in the suit.

5. The trial court framed several issues including the issues whether after expiry of the period of lease, the tenant could continue in the suit premises; and whether the requirement of the suit premises by the landlord was bona fide. and whether he has alternative accommodation; and whether partial eviction would serve the purpose of the landlord; and whether the suit premises can be divided and partial eviction will serve the purpose of the landlord or not.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioners were inducted as tenant under a registered lease dated 17.12.1988 with effect from 1.9.1988 to 31.8.2004 i.e. for about 16 years at the rent of Rs. 500/- per month. It is also not disputed that after expiry of the period of lease, the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the premises saying that he is not inclined to renew the lease as he had requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation. Clause 7 of the lease deed dated 17.12.1998 reads as follows:-

"Yah ki awadhi ke samapt ho jane par Makan-Malik ko Kirayedar isi shart par punah dusra lease denge jiska kanuni taur se nibandhan kiya jayega:

Ubhay paksha ke rai se jo shart manjur ki jayegi usi ke anusar awadhi ke sam apt hone par punah dukan kiraya par diya jayega. "

7. Thus. Clause 7 means that after expiry of lease, a fresh registered lease was to be executed by the landlord on mutually settled terms between the parties. The said Clause 7 cannot be construed to mean that the landlord was bound to renew the lease even if he did not want to enter into a fresh lease on the ground of personal necessity. The stipulation of renewal of lease is apparently based on mutually agreeable terms. Mutually agreed terms will not only mean the rate of rent and period of lease but it will also include the willingness of the landlord to enter into a fresh lease. Any other construction will make the said Clause 7 self-contradictory.

8. The tenant could not produce anything to show that the landlord was ready and willing to enter into fresh lease. Rather, from the legal notice got issued by the landlord it appears that he was not willing to enter into a fresh lease after expiry of the period of lease on the ground that he required the suit premises fo