N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision has been preferred by the tenant -defendant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as the B.B.C. Act] against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2005 passed by the Munsif -I, Dhanbad in Title Eviction Suit No. 8/2001. The plaintiffs -landlord filed suit for eviction of the tenant -defendant on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant is tenant in the suit premises, which consists of three interconnected rooms on the first floor and one room, one verandah, one bathroom and a common latrine on the ground floor on monthly rent of Rs. 250 per month payable according to the English calendar month. The family of the plaintiff No. 1 has now become large consisting of his wife, two sons, their wives and five grandsons and for the eleven members family, accommodation in their possession consisting of three rooms and one kitchen on the ground floor of the suit premises is not sufficient and he requires the ground floor suit premises which is on the ground floor of the building to meet the need of his family and in order to provide study -room, guest -room, a separate bath -room (which is to be constructed) etc. The family of the plaintiff No. 2 also is large and which includes his old mother, wife, two daughters aged 12 years and 6 years respectively, a son aged five years and one brother. He has only one room and a verandah in his possession on the first floor of the suit premises, which is insufficient accommodation for his family. It has been further stated that the marriage of the brother of the plaintiff No. 2 is being delayed for want of accommodation for the married couple. One room is also required for the study of the children and he has to also construct a separate bathroom. In order to meet their aforementioned requirements, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises and on his failure to vacate the same the suit was filed.
(2.) THE defendant appeared and prayed for time to file his written statement, but he did not seek leave to contest the suit as required under the provisions of Section 14(4) of the said act. Ultimately the defendant was debarred from filing his written statement. The suit was heard, the plaintiffs adduced their evidences. The defendant neither filed his written statement nor produced any witness. After discussing and appraising the evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, both oral and documentary, learned Court below held that the plaintiffs have been able to prove their personal necessity. The Court below thus decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises. 4. In this revision application, the impugned judgment and decree has been assailed by the petitioner on the only ground that while deciding the suit on the ground of personal necessity, learned Court below has not considered the desirability of partial eviction of the tenant by which the landlords requirement might have been substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building and the tenant could have been allowed to continue his occupation over the part of the premises. Learned Counsel submitted that even if the said issue is not raised by the tenant, it is incumbent on the Court to decide the question of partial eviction as required by the mandatory provision as contained in the proviso to Section 1 l(l)(c) of the B.B.C. Act and having not done so learned Trial Court has committed an error in not properly exercising his jurisdiction. The impugned judgment and decree is thus unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, contested the revision application and submitted that though there is no specific finding of the Court below on the said issue of partial eviction, yet the Court below has discussed and considered the evidence of P.W. 1 who has stated that partial eviction shall not fulfil the need of the plaintiffs and there being no contrary evidence on record, nothing remained to be considered and decided by the trial Court and the impugned judgment and decree is legal and sound.;