Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.i. He further contended that the Trial Court, after framing specific Issue No. IV on bona fide necessity and partial eviction, thoroughly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence Patna High Court C.R. No.166 of 2024(9) dt.19-12-2025 adduced by the plaintiffs through five witnesses and the exhibited documents. Based on such evidence, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs' need is genuine, reasonable, and in good faith, and that partial eviction would not serve their purpose. These findings are based on evidence and are neither perverse nor illegal and therefore do not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.

8.ii. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the defendant failed to raise any plea regarding partial eviction either in the written statement or during cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, nor did he lead any evidence to show that the plaintiffs' requirement could be satisfied by partial eviction. In law, once the landlord proves bona fide personal necessity, the onus shifts upon the tenant to plead and prove that such need can be met by partial eviction. Having failed to do so at the trial stage, the defendant cannot be permitted to raise the issue for the first time at the revisional stage.

16. The contention of the petitioner regarding partial eviction is wholly misconceived. It is a settled principle that once the landlord establishes bona fide requirement, the burden shifts upon the tenant to plead and prove that such requirement can be satisfied by partial eviction. In Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 234, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 18 that: "Once the landlord establishes bona fide requirement, the onus shifts on the tenant to prove that partial eviction would satisfy such requirement." In the present case, as rightly noted by the learned trial Court, the petitioner neither raised any plea of partial eviction in the written statement nor led any evidence to substantiate such a plea. In absence of pleading and proof, the tenant cannot resist eviction on the said ground.

18. The contention for partial eviction has been consistently followed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in PLJR 2005 (3) 719, PLJR 2013 (2) 491, PLJR 2005 (3) 19, and PLJR 2016 (4) 20, wherein it has been held that the plea of partial eviction must be specifically pleaded and proved by the tenant and cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time at the revisional stage. With regard to the existence of cause of action, it is settled law that cause of action is not confined to a single event but consists of a bundle of facts which may arise at different stages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163, held in paragraph 12 that cause of action comprises all those facts which the plaintiff must prove to obtain relief and may arise partly at one place and partly at another.