- (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)Leave granted.
(3.)The appellants in C.A. No. 917 of 2002 @ SLP(C)No. 3430/2001 are the landlords of the premises in disputes whereas the appellant in C.A. No. 918 of 2002 @ SLP(C)No. 12827/2001 is the tenant of the premises. The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute which consists of Schedule A, B and C property for their bonafide need of setting up of a jewellery business. The tenant filed a written statement wherein he denied the need of the landlord. However, the trial Court decreed the Suit and directed for eviction of the tenant. The tenant, thereafter, preferred a revision petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. After hearing the matter, the High Court found that under proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 it was mandatory on the part of the trial Court to have considered the question of partial ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute after having found that the need of the landlord is bonafide. However, the High Court took up that exercise upon itself and in that process directed that Schedule A property will continue in the tenancy of the tenant and Schedule B and C property shall be released in favour of the landlord. Consequently, the revision petition was decided in the aforesaid terms. It is against the said judgment, both the landlord and tenant have filed separate appeals in this Court.