ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. This is an application under section 14(B) of the Bihar Buildings (lease, rent & eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since the opposite parties have already appeared in this Civil Revision application, I intend to dispose of the same at the stage of admission itself. It appears that the suit for eviction under section 11(1) (c) (e) of the Act was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. Petitioners, after taking due leave of the court, contested the suit by filing written statement. The learned court below, after taking into consideration the relevant facts and materials on record and also evidence adduced in the case, held that plaintiffs required the suit premises bona fidely and reasonably for their personal use. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs had not established their needs in the suit for personal necessity and there was evidence on record that the plaintiffs have other premises to use and in that view of the matter, the suit could not have been decreed. It has further been urged on behalf of the petitioners that there is no finding by the learned court below on the question of partial eviction. I have carefully examined the impugned judgment and I find that the learned court below has given cogent reasons for recording its finding that the plaintiffs required the suit premises bona fidely and personal use. So far partial eviction is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners showed eagerness before the trial court for partial eviction. However, at the time of hearing at the admission stage, I directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to show as to whether such plea was taken in the written statement or it has been said in the evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has produced before me a copy of the written statement and also deposition on behalf of the defendants. There is nothing either in the written statement or in the deposition to show that the petitioners had agreed for partial eviction. The petitioners are Food Corporation of India and rightly they have not taken the plea of partial eviction. A Bench of this court has held in the case of Bata India Ltd. Vs. Dr. Md. There is nothing either in the written statement or in the deposition to show that the petitioners had agreed for partial eviction. The petitioners are Food Corporation of India and rightly they have not taken the plea of partial eviction. A Bench of this court has held in the case of Bata India Ltd. Vs. Dr. Md. Damruzsama reported in 1993(1) PLJR 87 that the tenant must agree for partial eviction and the court shall not proceed to enquire into the matter for partial eviction, suo motu. Having heard counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Application dismissed. (SLP No 21292/95 against the decision dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.9.95).