Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 22.2.1988 passed by Sri U.N. Singh, Subordinate Judge-I, Deoghar, in Title Suit No. 32/87, whereby and whereunder the said learned court granted a decree for eviction as against the petitioner purported to be in terms of Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 2. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land from the landlord of the defendant-petitioner and others. According to the plaintiffs they purchased the suit land for their own occupation thereof alongwith the family members. In the plaint the plaintiffs have sought to make out a case of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for their personal occupation. 3. In the aforementioned suit the defendant appeared and filed an application of leave of the Court to contest the suit. The leave sought for was granted by the learned court below. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application praying therein the affidavit filed in the application for leave to contest the suit to be treated as written statement. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the learned court below praying therein that as there had been no relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the said issue may be decided as a preliminary issue. It appears that by an order dated 27.1.1988 the learned court below had fr amed five issues, which are as follows: (1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (2) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for suit? (3) Do the plaintiffs reasonably and in good faith requires the suit premises for their personal use and occupation? 4. Have the plaintiffs purchased the suit premises for their bona fide personal use and occupation. 5. What other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. By an order dated 17.2.1988 the aforementioned application filed on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the issue with regard to the relationship of the landlord and tenant be taken up as a preliminary issue. From the order dated 18.2.1988/19.2.1988 it would appear that the learned court below heard the case on the preliminary issue. 6. However, by reason of the impugned order, the learned court below while purporting to determine the preliminary issue also proceeded to decide the main issues in the suit. 7. Mr. From the order dated 18.2.1988/19.2.1988 it would appear that the learned court below heard the case on the preliminary issue. 6. However, by reason of the impugned order, the learned court below while purporting to determine the preliminary issue also proceeded to decide the main issues in the suit. 7. Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the learned court below beard the petitioner only with regard to the preliminary issue, it had no jurisdiction to decide the other issues against the petitioner by reason of the impugned order. 8. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned senior counsel for the opposite-party, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the admission made by the defendant in his application for leave to contest the suit, it was open to the court below to decide the preliminary issue as also the other issues together by reason of the impugned order. In this connection learned Counsel has drawn my attention to paragraphs 1 (a) and 4 of the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein he accepted the fact that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff from his landlord and further accepted the fact that the plaintiff sent the rent for the month of July, 1987. 9. Learned Counsel submitted that in this view of the matter it was not open to the petitioner to raise the question of relationship of landlord and tenant, inasmuch as he having accepted the said relationship by and between himself and the vendor of the plaintiff, was precluded from challenging the relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiffs and the defendant. 10. The learned Counsel further contended that it is open to the court to grant a decree for personal necessity on the basis of the pleadings of the parties alone without going into evidence, in the event, the Court finds that the defendant has not specifically denied and/or traversed the allegations made in the plaint. Learned Counsel in this connection has drawn my attention to the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 3 and Order VIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel in this connection has drawn my attention to the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 3 and Order VIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned counsel, in view of the fact that the defendant-petitioner had not specifically denied the aforementioned allegations made by the plaintiff-opposite parties, the allegations made in the plaint would be deemed to have been admitted by the defendant and in this view of the matter is was open to the learned court below to pass a decree for eviction on the basis of the said admission alone. 11. It is true that in terms of Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court is expected to decide all the issues together, however, unless it finds that the disposal of the suit is possible by deciding one of the issues alone. 12. So far as Order XIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, the same confers the jurisdiction upon the court to decide a preliminary issue at the first instance. It is a settled principle of law that the question as to whether the suit will be decided by the decision of a preliminary issue or not is a discretionary and not a mandatory provision. 13. In this case the learned court below appears to be correct when it decided the preliminary issue as against the petitioner to the effect that there has been a relationship of landlord and tanant. 14. However, while deciding the said preliminary issue, it was not open to the learned court below to proceed to decide the case on the basis of pleadings of the parties alone without there being any evidence on records, 15. They very fact that the learned court below has granted leave to the defendant to contest the suit and the court below found that a prima facie case has been made out to the effect that the defendant will be in a position to show that the requirement of the plaintiffs is not bona fide, he could not have decided the suit on its merits only on the basis of the pleading of the parties. 16. 16. In fact, in the application seeking leave to, contest the suit, the defendant has alleged as follows: (a) That the suit premises is under the occupation of the defendant since long and the plaintiff having the knowledge of the occupation of the suit premises alleged to purchase the suit premises. This clearly shows that the plaintiffs have no personal necessity for the suit premises. (b) That the plaintiffs were tenant and subsequently because the landlord of the ground floor of the Holding and there they have been residing comfortably without any difficulties of occupation and use. (c) That the first floor (suit premises) was vacant for a pretty long times, within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs never made any attempt to occupy the suit premises either by purchase or by occupying the same on tenancy. This also shows that the claim of the plaintiffs are mala fide. (d) That the plaintiffs are in occupation of different premises and all the three plaintiffs are separate in mess, residence and business. 17. In a case of this nature where in terms of the provision of the said Act itself an application for leave to contest the suit can be considered to be a written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, the question of the defendant controverting the allegations made in the plaint parawise does not arise. As referred to hereinbefore, the defendant has made out a case for trial. In fact, as noticed hereinbefore, the learned court below had also framed as many as five issues which arose between the parties in respect whereof the parties were required to adduce their respective evidences on the basis thereof alone the court could hold as to whether a decree for eviction can be passed in favour of the plaintiff-opposite parties or not. 18. In such a situation the purported attempt on the part of the learned court below for determination of all the issues together without allowing any party to adduce evidence has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the defendant has seriously been prejudiced thereby. 19. In this view of the matter, the second part of the order passed by the learned court below cannot be sustained. 20. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore and the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below is set aside. 19. In this view of the matter, the second part of the order passed by the learned court below cannot be sustained. 20. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore and the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below is set aside. The learned court below is directed to decide the case on merits afresh after allowing the parties to lead their respective evidences. 21. It is needless to say that the plaintiffs have filed the aforementioned suit on the ground of personal necessity on the ground that they required the same bona fide. An early disposal of the suit requires consideration at the hands of the learned court below and it is expected that he would dispose of the suit within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as also the lower court records. Let the lower Court records be sent down forthwith through special messenger at the cost of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, the parties shall bear their own costs in this civil revision application.