1. Heard Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. A tenant under a decree of eviction questions its correctness in the present revision application.

3. This civil revision application has been preferred by the defendant - petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2024, passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 456 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) - III, Patna Sadar. The said decree was passed under S.11(1)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBC Act', for the sake of brevity), on the ground of personal necessity.

4. The plaintiffs - opposite parties are the owners of the suit premises. They instituted the present eviction suit against the defendant - petitioner on two grounds as envisaged under S.11(1)(c) and S.11(1)(e) of the BBC Act. It was contended that the suit premises are required reasonably and in good faith by plaintiff no. 1 for her own occupation as she intends to establish a boutique therein with the help of plaintiff No. 3, who is currently unemployed. Further, the plaintiffs also asserted that the lease period has expired. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit under S.11(1)(c) of the BBC Act, holding that the plaintiffs have got bona fide and reasonable personal necessity for the suit premises. The plea for partial eviction was answered in the negative, as it failed to address the plaintiffs' bona fide need.

5. Description of the Suit Premises:
The suit premises, as described in Schedule - II of the plaint, comprises Shop No. 7 situated on the ground floor of Tapasya Complex, measuring about 186 square feet. The premises is situated at Boring Road, P.S. - S.K. Puri, District - Patna, within commercial - cum - residential Plot No. 11, S.K. Puri, Circle No. 249, Ward No. 34, under the Patna Municipal Corporation. The boundaries of the suit premises are as follows:

6. The case of the plaintiffs', in nutshell, is that the plaintiff No. 1, her husband late Ram Bilash Roy and mother - in law were co - owner of the said complex with their definite share in the said complex fully described in Schedule - 1 of the plaint. It is pleaded that the defendant - petitioner is a tenant of one of the shops at ground floor of the said complex which is fully described as Schedule - II of the plaint. In year 2009, the husband of the plaintiff No.1, Late Ram Bilash Roy, and his mother Late Janki Devi were alive. Her husband Ram Bilash Roy and mother - in - law died on 29.07.2013 and 28.05.2010 respectively leaving behind the plaintiffs who are their heirs. Plaintiff No.1 is wife of Late Ram Bilash Roy and Plaintiff No.2 is his son and plaintiff No.3 and 4 are his daughters. The plaintiffs are cosharer of said Schedule - 1 property so they are co - owner in respect to the property fully described in Schedule - 2 of the plaint. It is further pleaded the defendant - petitioner approached Late Ram Bilash Roy, his wife (Plaintiff No.1) and mother - inlaw Late Janki Devi for letting out the shop in suit on lease and offered a rent of Rs.1800/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred) per month. The land owners accepted his proposal of the said suit shop. Accordingly, a memorandum - cum - agreement to lease was prepared on 24.02.2009 to avoid further confusion. The tenancy of the lease shop was commenced from 1st January, 2009 to 31st December, 2013. The defendant has been paying the rent regularly till December, 2013. It is further contended that the terms of lease contains various terms including that the tenant will vacate the premises of suit after expiry of lease but the defendant has not vacated the suit premises. The plaintiffs served legal notice on 20.11.2013 through her lawyer to the defendant - petitioner demanding to vacate the premises of suit on the determination of said deed. It is further contend