Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This Revision Petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri Bahma Nand Prasad, Munsif, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1992 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-Opposite parties under Sec. 14 of the B.B.C. Act. 2. Plaintiff-Opposite Parties 1 to 7 filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises described in Scheduled-A of the plaint which is nothing but a shop room measuring about 11 6"/9 6" situated within the town of Chakradharpur having its Ward No. I and Holding No. 1/109. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and one Ganga Singh, O.P. No. 8 was added as plaintiff No. 8. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners of the two house premises comprised within the Municipal Holding No. 1/109 and 1/110 within the .Ward No. 1 of Chakradharpur Municipality. House No. 1/110 is comprised of 4 bed rooms, 2 in the ground floor and 2 in the first floor besides courtyard, Varandha, latrine etc. This portion is used by the plaintiffs as their residences. Other holding i.e. 1/109 consists of altogether five rooms, one room is used by the plaintiff No. 4 as his Chamber and Anr. room on the road on the side is also used by the plaintiff No. 2 as his Chamber. It should be mentioned here that both the abovementioned plaintiffs axe the Advocates. Out of the remaining three rooms, two rooms are used by the plaintiffs as bed room and the other room on the road side which is practically the suit premises is in occupation of the defendant. 3. The defendant admittedly is in occupation of the room on the rental of Rs. 230.00 per month. The plaintiffs filed the suit of ejectment for urgent need of the suit premises for their own personal use and occupation. It was pleaded that the suit premises was needed for starting a hardware shop by the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 who are unemployed for a long time. It is also stated that the father of plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 has agreed to provide adequate fund for starting the said business. Father has been made plaintiff No. 8 who is now O.P. No. 8 in this Revision Petition. 3 and 7 who are unemployed for a long time. It is also stated that the father of plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 has agreed to provide adequate fund for starting the said business. Father has been made plaintiff No. 8 who is now O.P. No. 8 in this Revision Petition. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were requesting the defendant to vacate the suit premises, but the defendant was avoiding to vacate the same on this pretext or other. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs have got no other shop room available for starting the business for plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7. 4. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are not the landlords and the defendant is not a tenant under them and as such there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. It is further contended that one Smt. Lalmani Devi is the owner of the suit premises. It is the case of the defendant that originally two big rooms towards south on the road side of holding No. 1/109 measuring 20 x 9 each. Out of the said two rooms, one room was given on monthly rental to the ground father of this defendant by original owner Smt. Lalmani Devi and the other room was given on lease to one Pramanik on monthly basis. In the shop room, cloth business was run by the grand father of the defendant. However, on permission of the original landlady Lalmani Devi, the original big shop was partitioned as the defendant desired to expand his business. The landlady acceded to the request and allowed him to convert the earlier single room into two rooms by constructing a partition wall. The defendant then started a ready made cloth shop in one room wherein other shop room continued to be used for running earlier cloth business. The other shop room was also partitioned by the tenant Mr. Pramanik and thus there became four shop rooms actually carved out of the earlier two rooms. Mr. Pramanik, the other tenant left business and vacated the two shop rooms and those were given on surrender to the plaintiffs and according to the defendant those shop rooms surrendered by Mr. Pramanik are lying vacant. Pramanik and thus there became four shop rooms actually carved out of the earlier two rooms. Mr. Pramanik, the other tenant left business and vacated the two shop rooms and those were given on surrender to the plaintiffs and according to the defendant those shop rooms surrendered by Mr. Pramanik are lying vacant. The defendant also had to close down his ready made cloth shop and the said shop room was converted into store room for keeping the cloths for his cloth shop. On request being made by the plaintiff No. 8 the defendant had vacated the shop room which was converted into his store room and surrendered the same in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly the monthly rental of the present shop room was reduced. Thus, according to the defendant, the two shop rooms vacated by Mr. Pramanik and one shop room by the defendant are all in possession of the plaintiffs and are lying vacant and as such the plaintiffs cannot have any urgent need to evict the defendant to start business for plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4. 5. During the course of trial of the case, at the option of the defendant, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for inspection of the suit premises alongwith the other shop rooms as was stated by the defendant in his written statement. He submitted a report wherein it was found that besides two Chambers being used by two plaintiffs, the other shop room was divided into a part and are used as two bed rooms attached to the Chambers of the Advocates. Thus the plea taken by the defendant that the other shop rooms vacated by the defendant and the other tenant Mr. Pramanik were lying vacant was not found to be true. The learned court below relying on the evidence adduced by the parties came to the finding that the plaintiff Nos. 3 and being sitting idle and unemployed have got the urgent need of an accommodation for starting their business of hardware for which finance is being assured by plaintiff No. 8, their father and as such passed the eviction decree on bonafide necessity. 6. Mr. 3 and being sitting idle and unemployed have got the urgent need of an accommodation for starting their business of hardware for which finance is being assured by plaintiff No. 8, their father and as such passed the eviction decree on bonafide necessity. 6. Mr. N.K. Prasad, appearing for and on behalf of the defendant-petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment of eviction on the following grounds: (i) The petitioners challenge about the bonafide and reasonableness of the claim of necessity regarding the starting of business for plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 for which finances are assured by plaintiff No. 8 has been substantiated when plaintiff No. 8 has not been examined in the case and such resources for opening up of business for and on behalf of the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 have not been proved. (ii) That when the plaintiff No. 3 and 7 were unemployed for a long time when the other tenanted rooms were surrendered in favour of the plaintiffs the such business could have been opened up at that point of time but only to defeat the cause of the defendant and to get him evicted, two rooms had been used as bed rooms while in the busy market area, such using of bed rooms are not at all convincing and feasible. 7. Mr, Debi Prasad, appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiffs-Opposite parties has refuted the submissions of Mr. N.K. Prasad by referring to the judgment of the lower court itself. 8. Bonafide necessity of opening up a business of two of the plaintiff could be established when it could be found by the learned court below by close scrutiny of evidence that those two plaintiffs, namely, plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 were unemployed. In that context, it is not necessary to prove as to what business they would start and wherefrom they would get resources. The pleadings are there that resources are coming from their father. It is not within the jurisdiction of defendant-tenant to challenge availability of resources. 9. Regarding the second point, it has been submitted by Mr. In that context, it is not necessary to prove as to what business they would start and wherefrom they would get resources. The pleadings are there that resources are coming from their father. It is not within the jurisdiction of defendant-tenant to challenge availability of resources. 9. Regarding the second point, it has been submitted by Mr. Debi Prasad that the Pleader Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the defendant when they had taken the plea that other three rooms vacated by the tenants were lying vacant under lock and key, but the Pleader Commissioners report had completely gone against the defence plea and the evidence of Pleader Commissioner had totally supported the contention of the plaintiffs. 10. I have gone through the records of the original court including the evidence on record. Two of the plaintiffs are practicing Advocates and definitely they need Chambers for the purpose of their vocation. In that view of the matter, when the rooms were vacated by the tenants those were used as Chambers and for the purpose of bed rooms of the two Advocates contiguous to their Chambers. It is not that after vacating of that rooms by the plaintiffs those lay vacant rather those were used for the most bonafide necessity of two of the plaintiffs. It is also in evidence and admitted by the defence that the other holding i.e. 1/109 was used completely for the residential purposes of the plaintiffs which has a big family having still continuing joint. 11. Thus, from the evidence of D.W. 5, the Pleader Commissioner, the defence case has been completely demolished to the effect that the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7 have got vacant rooms for the purpose of their starting of business of hardware. 12. According to Mr. N.K. Prasad, when two of the brothers amongst the plaintiffs are having no employment then there was definitely necessity of getting them employed by setting up business when there of the rooms were vacated by the tenants. His further submission is that even if the Chambers of the Advocate were considered of utmost necessity then also using of another room as bed room by making partition rather shows that the necessity as alleged by the plaintiffs is tainted and not on good faith. 13. I am not convinced with such submission. His further submission is that even if the Chambers of the Advocate were considered of utmost necessity then also using of another room as bed room by making partition rather shows that the necessity as alleged by the plaintiffs is tainted and not on good faith. 13. I am not convinced with such submission. Only because two vacated rooms were used as bed rooms that do not take away the genuineness of the claim of necessity of the plaintiffs for setting up of business of plaintiff Nos. 3 and 7. The family is a big one as is found from the evidence itself. So, there must have been a crying need for bed rooms of the Advocates and as such as soon as rooms were vacated, those were used as bed rooms. The necessity of the plaintiffs, if not totally unfounded cannot be questioned by the defendants. The observation of this Court as reported in 1985 BX.T. (Rep) 207 Tarn Chand Agrawal v. Lallan Kishore Saran, as referred to by Mr. N.K. Prasad is not at all applicable in the present case. In that case, during the pendency of the eviction suit, there was a newly constructed shop of the plaintiff which was let out to another tenant at a high rent without offering it to the tenant, it was observed that the requirement as pleaded by the plaintiffs in the eviction suit was not genuine and the same was not filed on good faith. Here, in the present case, there is no such intention being shown against the plaintiffs that they were trying to give this tenanted premises of the defendant on high rent after taking big Salami. Although, it was pleaded by the defendant in his written statement, but not an iota of evidence is there is support of such pleadings. Hence, I do not find any force in the submission of Mr. N.K. Prasad that the plaintiffs could not prove the genuineness of their bonafide necessity for the eviction of the tenant. 14. Regarding parietal eviction also, it was discussed by the learned court below in the concluding part of his judgment. The tenanted shop room is so small in nature, it cannot be divided into two parts to suffice the need of the plaintiff in one part keeping the tenant in other part. Mr. 14. Regarding parietal eviction also, it was discussed by the learned court below in the concluding part of his judgment. The tenanted shop room is so small in nature, it cannot be divided into two parts to suffice the need of the plaintiff in one part keeping the tenant in other part. Mr. N.K. Prasad has also fairly submitted that question of partial eviction does not arise in the present case as the tenanted shop rooms in very small in nature. 15. In the result, I do not find any force in this revision petition and the same is rejected having no force in it with costs.