Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. In this revision application under Sec. 14(b) of the Bihar Buildings (Leave, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, the petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of an order of his eviction in a suit filed under Section 14 of the said Act. 2. The suit was filed by the opposite party, on 5.12.1985, stating, inter alia, that she had purchased the Holding No. 4A Ward No. 2 of Madhupur Municipality of which the defendant is a monthly tenant @ Rs. 25.00 according to the English Calender Month; that the tenancy was also assigned to her; that thief defendant also called her as land lady by paying rent for the month of August, 1979, that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent from September, 1979 and thus is liable to be evicted under Sec. 11 of the Act but she reserves her right to file a separate suit on that ground; that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises for personal use and for benefit and use of her children; that her son is sitting idle and she wants him to get a business started but due to non availability of space she has not been able to settle him; that the suit premises is an ideal place for business being situated in a business place and therefore she is good faith, bona fide and reasonably requires the suit premises. 3. 3. The defence of the petitioner shortly stated was that the plaintiff is not the sole owner and he is monthly tenant under a large number of Co-owners; that under the pressure and coercion the payment of the rent by the defendant was doubled for the month of August, 1979; that he paid rent to the out going landlord and also to the plaintiff; that she refused to accept rent which he started remitting by postal money orders that there was never any agreement about the date of payment and he used to pay rent by the last day of the next following month as per the custom and practice with all tenants and never defaulted in payment of rent, that the claim of personal necessity in vague and false as neither she nor members of her family require the suit premises reasonable besides her sons are already well settled running their business and the eldest son is highly placed in Bokaro Steel Plant; that the plaintiffs family has another big house in the same ward which is ideally suited both for residence as well as business; that there is a big vacant portion on the ground floor of the house in question which can accommodate four shops; that the premises was taken on rent for manufacturing purposes and from the very beginning he has his wheat and flour mill on which he is dependent for his livelihood. 4. The plaintiff examined P.W. 1 Krishna Ballabh Sahay, P.W. 2 Triveni Prasad Rai, P.W. 3 Ali Ahmad, P.W. 4 Sachindanand Sinha, P.W. 5 Paras Nath Rat, P.W. 6 her husband, P.W. 7 her youngest son Arun Kumar Burman, and P.W. 8 Lallu Ram. She also produced her sale deed, Municipal receipts, Mutation receipts which were marked as Exhibits-1 to 5. 5. The opposite party also produced agreement and certain other papers and got them marked as Exhibits-A to D/1 apart from examining himself as D.W. 1, D.W.Z. Md. Rayazuddin, D.W. 3 Chhotelal Sah, D.W. 4 Noor Md., D.W. 5 Bensidhar Rai, D.W. 6 Revindra nath Chakravarty. 6. P.W. 1 Krishna Ballabh Sahay, a deed writer merely proved the sole deed (Ext. 1). 7. Triveni Pd. Rai, an Advocates clerk proved the receipts granted by Madhupur Municipality (Ext. 2 series), receipt granted in token of realisation of Mutation fee (Ext. 6. P.W. 1 Krishna Ballabh Sahay, a deed writer merely proved the sole deed (Ext. 1). 7. Triveni Pd. Rai, an Advocates clerk proved the receipts granted by Madhupur Municipality (Ext. 2 series), receipt granted in token of realisation of Mutation fee (Ext. 3), Miscellaneous-receipt of the Madhpur Municipality (Ext 3/A) and a government rent receipt (Ext. 4). 8. P.W. 3 AH Ahmad proved the writings of the Tax Collector of the Municipality on four Municipal receipts (Ext. 2/A to 2/D). 9. P.W. 4 Sachidanand Sinha stated that he has been residing in Ward No. 3 of the Madhupur Municipality since 40-50 years and knows the parties. His stated that Laxmi Narain Burman does his Goldsmith work in a rented shop; that the family of the eldest son, by and large, resides at Madhpur; that the middle son does repairs work in the Goldsmith shop; that the third son is younger and wants to do business who can do readymade and cloth business in the house which was purchased by the wife of Laxmi Narain Burman. In cross-examination he stated that the third son is sitting idol that Laxmi Narain Burman is aged about 70 years and that he has his residential house in Neemtalla Road in which his entire family residence; that Arun is having money and that he wants to invest capital taking money from his brother and mother to the tune of Rs. 15-20 thousand. 10. P.W. 5 Paras Nath Rai was a formal witness who proved the writings of Madan Mohan as Ext. 2/F. 11. The plaintiffs husband Laxmi Narain Burman examined himself as P.W. 6. In Paragraph 4 he stated that his wife is not in a position to move. In paragraph 5 he stated that in the house in Mohella Neemtalla he cannot do any business and that there are 16 members in the family. He further stated that there is no scope of settling Arun in the house of Rajmas Road and that no sooner the house is vacated Arun will start business. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination he stated that capital of Rs. 15-20 thousand shall be given to Arun. There has been no cross-examination in regard to the statement made by him in paragraph 4 that his wife is not in a position to move. 12. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination he stated that capital of Rs. 15-20 thousand shall be given to Arun. There has been no cross-examination in regard to the statement made by him in paragraph 4 that his wife is not in a position to move. 12. The youngest son Arun Kumar Burman was examined as P.W. 7 who in his examination in chief stated that taking together they are 15-16 men in the family that in the house has wants to do business of ready made and cloth capital of which will be provided by mother, father and brothers as he did not want to do the work of Goldsmith as he has passed B.Com. 13. The defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 who in his examination-in-chief has not denied the fact that the plaintiff is not in a position to move though stated that Arun Bose the work of Goldsmith and that the house is not personally needed by the plaintiff: In paragraph 17 of his cross-examination he admitted Arun to be a B. Com, aged 22 years, and reached such an age which is fit to do business. In paragraph 24 he stated that in the disputed house a shop of ready made cloth can be opened. 14. D.W. 2 M. Riyazuddin a shop-keeper, was an interested witness. He admitted that the defendant Nizamuddin is son of one of the five brothers of his father, He has not stated that the case of the plaintiff was incorrect. 15. D.B. 3 Chhotelal Sah had also not stated that the case of the plaintiff is incorrect. 16. D.W. 4 Noor Mohammad claimed to be a cultivator having house by the side of the disputed house. In his examination in chief he has failed to disclose the names of sons and grand sons of Laxmi Narain Burman. In paragraph 7 of his examination in chief he has stated to the effect that towards the south of the disputed house there is a house of mother of Nizamuddin in which there are three rooms and a courtyard. In paragraph 7 of his examination in chief he admits that in the disputed rooms all types of business can be done. 17. D.W. 5 Bansidhar Rai, D.W. 6 Ravindra Nath Chakarvarty and D.W. 7 Awadhesh Prasad Sinha were formal in nature proving signature and no discussion is called for. 18. Mr. In paragraph 7 of his examination in chief he admits that in the disputed rooms all types of business can be done. 17. D.W. 5 Bansidhar Rai, D.W. 6 Ravindra Nath Chakarvarty and D.W. 7 Awadhesh Prasad Sinha were formal in nature proving signature and no discussion is called for. 18. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted as follows: (i) The trial court has committed an error is not drawing an adverse inference from the non-examination of the plaintiff. He places reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Ramji Jankiji V/s. Mauni Baba -- (ii) The trial court has committed an error of record in saying that Arun Kumar Burman, the youngest son of the plaintiff, is a Commerce Graduate and is unemployed. (iii) The necessity pleaded by the plaintiff was of Arun but the evidence adduced does not support this. (iv) The finding of partial eviction is not in accordance with law. 19. Mr, Modi, learned Counsel for the opposite party submits as follows: (i) A learned single Judge in Vaidyanath Thakur V/s. Punjab National Bank 1987 PLJR 254 though tooknote of the Division Bench Judgment supra and held that it is not necessary for the plaintiff in a suit under the Act to examine herself. (ii) No error of record was committed as in paragraph 17 of his cross examination D.W. 1 has categorically admitted those facts. (iii) The personal necessity was also proved by the witnesses examined by the plaintiff-Opp. party and to a great extent admitted even by the defendant No. 1 along with other witnesses. (iv) The finding of partial eviction is also correct. (v) In any view of the matter the instant case is not such which requires no interference in exercise of discretion under Sec. 14(8) of the Act. 20. P.W. 6 Laxmi Narain Burman in paragraph 4 of his examination in chief has categorically stated that his wife is not in a position to move. In that regard there has been no cross examination. The deposing defendant D.W. 1 has not stated in his evidence this fact to be untrue. These apart, it is apparent from the order in question that no grievance was made by the petitioner in the court below about the non examination of the plaintiff-opp. party. In that regard there has been no cross examination. The deposing defendant D.W. 1 has not stated in his evidence this fact to be untrue. These apart, it is apparent from the order in question that no grievance was made by the petitioner in the court below about the non examination of the plaintiff-opp. party. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Sinha that I should draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff-Opp. party for her non examination. In the said view of the matter the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1978 Patna 46 is of no help to Mr. Sinha as it is settled law that law applies mutatius mutenie. 21. Coming to the next submission of Mr. Sinha, I find that paragraph 17 of his cross examination the deposing defendant has categorically stated as follows: (In English Translation): The youngest son of Kailash Devi is B. Com. He is aged 22 years. Me has attained the age of marriage and for doing business." It is an admitted fact that Arun Kumar Burman is the youngest son of the plaintiff. In the aforementioned view of the matter, I do not see any error of record committed by the trial court in making his observations. 22. Coming to the next question as to whether the plaintiff has not proved the personal necessity as set forth by her, I have extracted relevant evidence of the witnesses examined by her from which it is clear that she has proved her necessity. The trial court thus, in my view has not committed any error of law in accepting her case. The witnesses have also stated about the providing of capital. There does not appear to be sufficient reasons advance in the court below not to accept their testimony nor there is any reason for me to reject the same. 23. Now I come to the last submission as to whether the need of the plaintiff could have been satisfied by the partial eviction of the Opp. party. I find that this question has also been considered in paragraph 14 by the trial court. The reason given in my view are not vitiated on account of such errors which require my interference. 24. party. I find that this question has also been considered in paragraph 14 by the trial court. The reason given in my view are not vitiated on account of such errors which require my interference. 24. In the aforementioned view of the matter, I do not think that it is a fit case in which I should exercise my direction. 25. This revision application is, thus, dismissed. 26. However, I am inclined to grant some time to the petitioner to vacate the premises provided he files the usual undertakings and deposits rents in the court below and after doing so he shall not be vacated within six months.