Patna High Court - Orders
Jai Prakash Kumar @ Jai Prakash Sao vs Deo Nandan Prasad @ Doman Prasad on 6 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.96 of 2019
======================================================
1. Jai Prakash Kumar @ Jai Prakash sao Son of Late Kalicharan @ Kali Sao
Resident of Mohalla Murarpur Town Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif, P.S.
Laheri District Nalanda.
2. Manju Devi Wife of Ajay Kumar Gupta Resident of Mohalla Murarpur
Town Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri District Nalanda.
3. Indu Devi Wife of Late Radhey Shyam Resident of Mohalla Murarpur Town
Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri District Nalanda.
4. Pinki Devi Wife of Rajesh Kumar Gupta Resident of Mohalla Murarpur
Town Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri District Nalanda.
5. Madhu Devi Wife of Anand Prasad Gupta Resident of Mohalla Murarpur
Town Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri District Nalanda.
6. Arjun Kumar Son of Late Kalicharan @ Kali Sao Resident of Mohalla
Murarpur Town Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri District Nalanda.
7. Raj Kishore Kumar @ Rajkishore Prasad Son of Late Kalicharan @ Kali
Sao Resident of Mohalla Murarpur Town Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif, P.S.
Laheri District Nalanda.
8. Ashok Kumar Sao @ Ashok Kumar Son of Late Kalicharan @ Kali Sao
Resident of Mohalla Murarpur Town Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif, P.S.
Laheri District Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Deo Nandan Prasad @ Doman Prasad Son of Late Vaidya Nath Sao
Resident of Mohalla Murarpur, Town Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri P.O.
Biharsharif District Nalanda.
2. Deepak Kumar Son of Late Krishna Sao Resident of Mohalla Murarpur,
Town Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri P.O. Biharsharif District Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suman Kumar, Adv
Mr.Amar Nath Singh, Adv
Mr. Satya Prakash, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Chandra, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
14 06-02-2026This Civil Revision application no. 96 of 2019 has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 2/22 referred to as "BBC Act") against the judgment dated 27.02.2019 and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2006, whereby and where under learned trial Court decreed the suit in suit in part and further directed the defendants/petitioners to vacate the premises in question bearing holding no. 589 within 60 days and handover to the plaintiff/opposite parties failing which the plaintiff/opposite parties will be at liberty to evict the defendant from the suit premises by the process of the Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that the old Holding No. 474 has been divided into new Holding No. 587, 588, 589, 590 and the said holdings are ancestral properties of plaintiffs/respondents and after partition the said holdings came in the share of Krishna Sao and Doman Sao. Further in the year 1964-65 the original Defendant No. 1 Kalicharan @ Kali Sao took the premises of south side of holding No. 590 on monthly rental of Rs. 20/- from father of the plaintiffs for the business of iron shop later on his business flourish and Defendant No. I took the premises of Holding No. 590 of Ward Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 3/22 No. 6 on monthly rental of Rs. 30/ - and used to pay total monthly rent Rs. 50/- to the father of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further stated that about 35-36 years ago when the father of plaintiffs started to construct the house towards south of said rented premises, then the defendant requested him to construct the house on pillar, so that his shop will be continued on ground floor. Accordingly, plaintiff's father constructed double storied building and on the request of Defendant No. 1 the father of Plaintiff No. 1 and Krishna Sao, let out the house on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and the total monthly rent became 350/- and the same was being paid hand to hand and the rent gradually enhanced to Rs. 400/- per month.
4. Further on 20.12.1988 an agreement was signed by the defendant for vacating the suit premises in question but he did not vacate the same. Then in the year 2005 the Plaintiff No. 1 met to Defendant No. 1 and told him that his family increase in size and it is quite difficult to live in the old house and his nephew Deepak Kumar is unemployed and wants to do iron and iron rod business in large scale, therefore to vacate the suit premises. All of sudden in the year 2006 the defendant began to construct after breaking boundary wall, then a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C was initiated. The Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 4/22 Plaintiff No. 1 further stated that his nephew Deepak Kumar is unemployed and they want to do their own business of iron and iron rod in large scale as mentioned above but the defendant was making excuses and not vacating the suit property. The plaintiffs have personal necessity of rental premises. On 16.07.2006 the defendant has refused to vacate the suit premises, hence the plaintiffs/respondents have filed the Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2006 on the ground of personal necessity.
5. Further the defendant appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that suit is not maintainable on the ground that Rajkumari Devi has not been made party in the suit. The house of Rajkumari Devi included in the eviction suit on false statement. Rajkumari Devi wife of Kali Charan Sao and Pachhu Mahto had purchased 15 decimals through registered sale deed dated 05.09.1967 from Vidya Sao father of plaintiff no. 1 and grandfather of plaintiff no. 2 in the name of her cousin bhaisur benami Lakhan Sao (12 annas in the name of Panchhu Matho and 4 annas in the name of Rajkumari Devi). On 11.06.1073 Lakhan Sao executed a registered Ladavi in the name of Rajkumar Devi. After partition between Pachhu Mahto and Rajkumari Devi, 11 toward south side came in the share of Pachhu Mahto and 3% decimals toward north side came in the Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 5/22 share of Rajkumari Devi. Rajkumari Devi had constructed a double storied building on her share and was living along with her family.
6. The defendant admits that there was vacant land of plaintiffs towards north on the back of defendant shop i.e. 24 feet north-south and 59 feet east-west as mentioned in Schedule No. 2 of written statement, which has been taken by the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.20/- and the rent gradually increased to 100/ per month and the same has been paid to Deonandan Prasad (Plaintiff No. 1) hand to hand. The defendant has given Rs. 5000/- advanced to Plaintiff No. 1 with oral condition that it shall be adjusted if the rent dues. The plaintiffs have wrongly stated that the rent has become enhanced to Rs. 400/-. The Deepak Kumar plaintiff No. 2 nephew of petitioner no. 1 is not employed and Plaintiff No. 1 and 2 both are doing Arahth (wholesale) business together at Bazar Samiti Bihar Sharif.
7. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda has examined the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence of both plaintiffs and defendants and came to the finding that the plaintiffs have failed to proof the relationship of landlord and tenant against defendants with Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 6/22 respect to Holding No. 590, whereas plaintiffs have proved that the defendants are doing business as tenant in Holding No. 589 and landlord-tenant has been established in Holding No. 589. The learned trial Court has come second finding that Plaintiff No. 1 has no shop in his name and he wants to do business of iron and iron rod and he has also personal necessity of disputed premises and the nature of business will not satisfy personal need of plaintiffs by partial eviction. The learned counsel of defendants has also stated during his arguments that partial eviction will not satisfy the personal needs of either plaintiffs or defendants. Learned trial Court directed the defendants to vacate the Holding No. 589 within 60 days and hand over to plaintiffs failing which the plaintiffs will have liberty to get vacated the premises Holding No. 589 by the process of the Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that suit with regard to holding no. 590 is dismissed as there is no dispute between landlord and tenant and against this the plaintiffs/respondents have not filed any appeal. He further submits that from the entire judgment of the learned trial Court, it appears that the learned trial Court has not considered or gave clear findings with regard to partial eviction that whether the partial eviction will satisfy the requirement of the Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 7/22 plaintiffs/respondents or not and as such it appears that learned trial Court has failed to consider main ingredients of Section 11(i)(C) of the Act. It is well settled law that partial eviction should be decided on pleadings not on assumptions and the same has to be determined on the basis of proper enquiry in to the matter.
8.i. Learned counsel further submits that holding no. 589 was partially vacant land which is specifically mentioned in para 19 of the written statement and on vacant land BBC Act will not apply and accordingly the said eviction suit in itself is not maintainable. Further, the area of holding no. 589 is also not correctly mentioned as in the plaint it is given as 100 feet length and 45 feet wide but as per written statement of the petitioners/defendants length is 54 feet and 24 feet wide.
8.ii. He further submits that irrespective of its dimension and even when the room is big enough to permit division to satisfy the need of landlord as well as tenant. It is a question of fact in each case whether such a partial eviction can be made or not. This inquiry has to be done by the trial Court after reaching the conclusion that the landlord requirement for occupation of the premises set up by him has been made out in failing to do so the courts below overlooked the statutory Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 8/22 requirement and as such it is clear that even in room to of the subject matter the issue of partial eviction is mandatory. He lastly submits that under the aforesaid circumstances the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is bad without consideration of the mandatory requirement and is fit to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the eviction suit filed under Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act, 1982 was rightly decreed by the learned trial Court on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The relationship of landlord and tenant, rate of rent, and occupation of the suit premises by the defendants/petitioners are all admitted facts with respect to holding no. 589. The plaintiffs/respondents specifically pleaded in the plaint that the suit premises is reasonably and in good faith required for their own residence and personal use. Based on such evidence, the trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs' need is genuine, reasonable, and in good faith. These findings are based on evidence and are neither perverse nor illegal and therefore do not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
9.i. He further submits that the plea of partial eviction must be specifically raised and proved by the tenant at Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 9/22 the time of trial and that revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as a second court of appeal. It was emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction is limited, as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78. He next submits that it may not be out of place to mention here that this Hon'ble Court in a number of cases has said it in so many words that issue of "Partial eviction" has to be raised by defendants/petitioners in its written statement and in his deposition and issue of partial eviction can't be decided "Suo moto" reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 553. Similarly, in judgment reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 483, it was held that "neither in Evidence nor in pleading defendant stated that requirement of plaintiff will be satisfied by partial eviction then this issue can't be raised and the onus is upon defendant to prove the same." Other judgment on the point is 2014 (4) PLJR 476 and 2012 (3) PLJR 649; 2013 (2) PLJR 491.
9.ii. Further, on the point that BBC Act will not apply and eviction suit is not maintainable learned counsel submits that total area of holding 589 is 24 feet North-South x 59 feet East-West covered by Karkat and defendant himself stated that he has taken the said premises on rent for doing Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 10/22 business of iron and iron rod in large scale as tenant. The said premise is not a vacant land and the same is covered by Karkat with boundary wall and the holding number 589 has been allotted by the local municipal Corporation. He further submits that as per Section 2(b) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 the said holding is covered under definition of building.
9.iii. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgment rendered by co-ordinate bench of this Court in Aditya Raj and others v. Kumari Kavita Sinha reported in 2025 (4) BLJ, held in para 21 and 22:
"21. Learned court below has also taken note of Sec 11(1) of Bihar Building (L.R.&E.) Control Act which states that- "Notwithstanding... Where a Tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction therefrom except in execution of a decree passed by the court on one or more of the following grounds...". The court below has held that from this provision, it is apparent that if the suit is filed on any ground as mentioned in section 11 of Bihar Building (L.R.&E) Control Act and such ground is proved, the tenant is liable to be evicted.
22. Trial Court after considering oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of parties has held that there is relation of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant and plaintiff has been able to Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 11/22 establish that she require suit premises for bonafide personal necessity and has proved her case for personal necessity of suit premises. Defendant/ original petitioner has neither pleaded nor led any evidence on the point of partial eviction. Trial court has found that requirement of plaintiff will not be satisfied by partial eviction. In view of the above mentioned discussions as well as in view of pronouncement of law rendered in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, I do not find any illegality, irregularity and infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.9.2022, passed by learned Sub Judge I, Khagaria in Eviction Suit No. 02/21011."
9.iv. Learned counsel further relied upon judgment rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this court in (i) Civil Revision No. 172 of 2018, Dilip Kumar Agrawal v. Kamakhya Prasad (ii) Civil Revision No. 169 of 2013, Md. Ehasm Rasul v. Munni Devi (iii) 2005 (3) PLJR 719, Vinod Kumar Gupta and another v. Pushpa Devi and others ( para
10). In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the Civil Revision be dismissed, as the impugned judgment and decree are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law, and suffer from no illegality or jurisdiction error.
10. After due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the issues framed for adjudication, and the oral as Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 12/22 well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 27.02.2019 and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2006, was pleased to allow the suit.
11. The learned trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs/respondents is the owner and landlord of the suit premises and that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands admitted. It was further held that the rate of monthly rent and the occupation of the petitioners as a tenant in the suit premises were not in dispute. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, accepted the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that the suit premises is reasonably and bona fide required for their own use and occupation. The learned trial Court further accepted the evidence that the second son of the plaintiffs/respondents need to start a separate business in the suit premises and that the location of the suit premises is suitable for such purpose.
12. Upon an overall appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs/respondents had successfully established their entitlement to a decree of eviction Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 13/22 under Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act, 1982. Consequently, the suit was decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/petitioners. The petitioners were directed to vacate the suit premises holding no. 589 within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiffs/respondents was granted liberty to obtain eviction of the petitioners through the process of the Court.
13. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the said provision is extremely limited as the present Civil Revision has been preferred under Section 14 (8) of the BBC Act, 1982. The revisional Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and cannot re- appreciate evidence merely because a different view is possible. Interference is permissible only when the findings of the learned trial Court are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffering from jurisdictional error. The legal position in this regard stands conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (supra). In paragraph 43, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"The revisional court does not have the power to re-appreciate evidence. The Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 14/22 jurisdiction is confined to examine whether the findings of fact recorded by the court below are according to law and do not suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error."
In the present case, the learned trial Court has framed specific issues, appreciated oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, and gave reasoned findings. No perversity or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated warranting interference.
14. Coming to the core issue of bona fide personal necessity, the law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and the Court cannot substitute its own wisdom for that of the landlord. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 252, held in paragraph 15 that:
"It is always the prerogative of the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live or conduct his business. The tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord."
15. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, accepted this requirement as genuine and bona fide. The nature and test of bona fide requirement have been elaborately explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, reported in (1999) Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 15/22 6SCC 222, paragraph 11 observed that:
"The requirement of the landlord must be honest, genuine and conceived in good faith. It need not be a dire necessity but must be a real and sincere need."
Applying the above test, the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the respondents' need is honest and real, and not a mere pretext for eviction.
16. On the issue that whether the eviction suit is maintainable under BBC Act or not, it is necessary to look into the definition of building under the said Act. Section 2(b) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 read as:
"Building" means any building, or hut or a part of the building or hut, ' let or to be let, separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes-
(i) the garden, grounds and out houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or hut or part of such building or hut, and
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut or part of building or hut.
It is evident from the aforesaid Section that definition of the term "building" is very wide and vacant land do not come within the definition of the term building. However, where both the vacant land and the rooms have been let out by virtue of a Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 16/22 composite lease agreement, the BBC Act will apply to such tenancy.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 and 10 of M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. Vs. Govindas Purushothamdas reported in AIR 2001 SC 1387 has held as under: -
"9. From a plain reading of the statutory provisions quoted above, it is clear that the expression "building" includes any building with the garden, grounds and outhouses appurtenant to such building, or part of such building let or to be let along with such building. In view of the expansive definition of the term, any structure which is part of the premises let out or to be let out comes within the purview of "building."
This position becomes further clear on reading sub-Section (4) of section 4 wherein it is provided that the total cost referred to in sub-Section (2) and sub-Section(3) shall consist of the market value of the site in which the building is construed, the cost of construction of the building and the cost of provision of any one or more of the amenities specified in Schedule 1 as on the date of application for fixation of fair rent. In the first proviso to the sub-Section (4), it is laid down while calculating the market value of the site in which the building is constructed, the Controller shall take into account only that portion of the site on which the building is constructed and of a portion up to fifty per cent thereof, the vacant land, if any, appurtenant to such Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 17/22 building, the excess portion of the vacant land, being treated as amenity.
10. Reading the two provisions together, it is clear to us that for the purpose of assessment of fair rent not only the area on which the building is constructed, but also the land appurtenant to it subject to the limit prescribed in the statute and other structure appurtenant to the main building and also the amenities described in Schedule 1of the Act are all to be taken into account. Therefore, the contention raised by Dr. Singhivi that the platform and the henpen are not to be included in calculating the area for he purpose of assessment of fair rent, since cannot be used as a building, cannot be accepted having regard to the facts found in the case. The High Court, in our considered view, did not commit any illegality in including the said structure within the plinth area for the purpose of fixation of fair rent."
18. It may be noted in this regard that the above decision of the Apex Court is with respect to a case of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Control) Act, 1960 and Section 2(2) of that Act is exactly the same as Section 2(b) of the BBC Act. In the aforesaid case, originally the premise was a vacant land and subsequently the tenant makes construction and pays rent for the entire premises, it is held that the said premises cannot be legally called a vacant land and cannot be legally deemed to stand out of the definition of "building" as provided in Section 2(b) of the Act. In the case of Sri Binay Kumar Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 18/22 Maheshwari Vs. Fanindra Prasad Mishra, reported in 2002(2) PLJR 865, it has been held that provisions of the Act would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, the eviction suit under the BBC Act is maintainable.
19. On the core issue of bona fide and reasonable personal necessity, the law gives primacy to the landlord's assessment of his own need. In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held in paragraph 2 that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and the tenant cannot dictate the manner of his living. Further, in Ramashray Singh v. Bindeshwari Prasad, reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 91, paragraph 10, it was held that requirement of premises for dependent family members is a legitimate and bona fide requirement.
20. The law relating to eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 119, while interpreting the scope of eviction on the ground of personal requirement, has lucidly explained the approach which a Court Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 19/22 is required to adopt. In paragraph of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bonafide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafide of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
21. The principle laid down in Sarla Ahuja (supra) further clarifies that once bona fide personal necessity is established, the trial Court should not weigh the landlord's requirement against the convenience of the tenant, except to the Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 20/22 limited extent contemplated under the proviso relating to partial eviction. In the present case, the learned trial Court in the judgment has also examined the aspect of partial eviction and has recorded a reasoned finding that partial eviction would not satisfy the respondents nor petitioners requirement. Thus, even the safeguard provided to the tenant under the proviso stands duly considered and answered, this Court finds no perversity, arbitrariness or legal infirmity in the finding that the respondent's requirement is bona fide. The finding is based on evidence, conforms to settled law, and does not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
22. Upon an overall consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and settled principles of law, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction properly, applied the correct legal tests, and recorded findings supported by evidence. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and the settled principles of law governing eviction on the ground of bona fide Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 21/22 personal necessity under Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act,1982. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court regarding the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the respondents for the suit premises, and the non-feasibility of partial eviction are based on cogent evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error.
24. This Court further finds that the scope of interference under Section 14 (8) of the B.B.C. Act is limited, and the present Civil Revision does not disclose any ground warranting interference with the well-reasoned judgment dated 27.02.2019 and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bihar Sharif, Nalanda in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2006. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of merit and do not persuade this Court to take a different view. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision No. 96 of 2019 is dismissed. The judgment dated 27.02.2019 and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bihar Sharif, Nalanda are hereby affirmed
25. The petitioners/defendants is directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premise holding no. 589, to the respondents/plaintiffs within a period of Patna High Court C.R. No.96 of 2019(14) dt.06-02-2026 22/22 ninety (90) days from passing of the order of this Court otherwise respondents will have right to vacate the suit premise as per process of law.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Sunnykr/-
U