- (1.) HEARD the parties and perused the lower court records. The plaintiff filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 12 of 1998 against the defendants under section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, wherein a decree for defendants ' eviction was sought on the ground of personal necessity, which was denied by the defendants. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, whereby the suit was decreed, the trial court discussed the plaintiff 's requirement of the suit premises as well as possibility of partial eviction. After stating the plaintiff 'scase as made out in the plaint, the following observations have been made : "He has examined six witnesses in this case. P.W. 1 is the plaintiff himself. He has deposed that he has 4 sons. His family consist 11 persons. His three sons are unemployed and he needs the tenanted premises for his three sons. Partial eviction will not serve his purpose. His two sons are still to be married. He had no sufficient accommodation for his family. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are sons of plaintiff. They have deposed that they are unemployed. They have supported the plaintiff 'scase."
(2.) THEREAFTER the defendants ' case as pleaded in the written statement has been stated and the following observations have been made : "He has examined four witnesses to prove his case. These witnesses have supported to the defendants ' case." It is well settled that a judgment must be based upon consideration of the whole evidence on both sides. In my opinion, simply observing that the witnesses have supported the respective cases of the parties is not the proper way of appreciating the evidence. In the present case, the defendants denied plaintiff 'salleged personal requirement of the suit premises and if as observed above by the trial court their witnesses supported their case, then there was no reason to disbelieve the defendants ' case. There is absolutely no discussion/consideration of the evidence of those witnesses in the judgment and after the words "these witnesses have supported to the defendants ' case" nothing further has been said about their testimony. In my view, the trail court failed to scrutinize and record its findings on the testimony of the witnesses. This is not the proper way of appreciating the evidence by the trial court.
(3.) L , therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the suit to the trial court for its disposal afresh on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary already on record, and on the basis of the observations made above.;