Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This civil revision application has been preferred under Sec. 14 (B) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Act) against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1995 passed by the Munsif, Chaibase, in Eviction Suit No. 16 of 1993 in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party. 2. The above-mentioned suit was filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants on the bona fide necessity as contemplated under Sec. 11 (1) (c) of the Act for accommodating her two unemployed sons, namely Sapan Paul and Milan Paul for opening up the business for them. The suit premises originally belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and her co-sharers Previously a partition suit was there between the co-sharers and the suit premises fall into the share of the plaintiff. The relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants have not been denied. In the plaint it has been clearly stated that two sons of the plaintiff, namely, Sapan Paul and Milan Paul were graduates and still unemployed and, as such, for opening up the business for them, the suit premises were required. After taking leave from the court under Sec. 14 (4) of the Act, the defendants filed written statement and their contention was that the bona fides necessity, as claimed from the side of the plaintiff, was a myth and there was no necessity tor the plaintiffs two sons as they are already employed and doing business According to the defendants, one son was doing business of Sheel-Lorha near the Railway station and other son is having a Betel Shop (Pan Gumti). The defendants has also tried to prove their business by issuing some purchase receipts which were marked an Exts. E and E/l. Although it was not specifically averred in the written statement, but in course of argument, it was not brought from the side of the defendants that there was a still vacant space on the north of the shop room of Manik Paul, another son of the plaintiff, which could be well utilised for accommodating two sons if really there was bonafide necessity for them. 3. In the suit both the parties evidence in support of their cases. 3. In the suit both the parties evidence in support of their cases. The learned court below after scrutinising the evidence of all the parties had come to the decision that the two sons of the plaintiff, namely, Sapan Paul and Milan Paul were unemployed graduates and they could not get any shop or space for their earning till now and as such the suit premises are required for opening up their business, fund for which could be borne by the plaintiff herself. Regarding the vacant space of the northern side of the shop of Manik Paul, the learned court below on scrutiny of the evidence found that there was doubt regarding the existence of any vacant space and even if there was a vacant space, the same was being utilised by Manik Kumar Paul as godown for his business purpose. 4. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the defendants-appellants has challenged the impugned judgment and decree of evidence on the following grounds: (i) The sole plaintiff has not examined herself and, according to Mr. Roy, for facing corss-examination with regard to the bonafide necessity, she had avoided to come to the witness box; (ii) Bonafide necessity as stated in respect of Sapan Paul and Milan Paul could not be proved by any cogent evidence from the side of the plaintiff; (iii) Other space of the north of the shop of Manik Paul could be proved by the defendants as vacant space and, as such, the same can be utilised for the purpose of opening of the shop/business to the two sons of the plaintiff; (iv) Partial eviction has not been decided by the learned court below in its proper perspective. 5. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party has replied and averted all the submissions of Mr. Roy by referring the material on record and supported the judgment of eviction. 6. Regarding the first point about the non-examination of the plaintiff, there is no substance in the submission Mr. Roy. It has come in evidence that the plaintiff is an old lady and she is ailing, so she could not come in the dock, but on her behalf, three sons had been examined in the case. 6. Regarding the first point about the non-examination of the plaintiff, there is no substance in the submission Mr. Roy. It has come in evidence that the plaintiff is an old lady and she is ailing, so she could not come in the dock, but on her behalf, three sons had been examined in the case. Two sons, namely, Sapan Paul and Milan Paul for whom the suit premises were said to be necessary have examined themselves and faced corss-examination. Other son Manik Paul has also been examined as plaintiff witness. Fact of non- examination of the plaintiff in such sort of cases cannot be cannot bring any adverse inference. The persons for whose benefit the evidence suit has been filed have been examined and they have also faced cross-examination. In that view of the matter, non-examination of the plaintiff has got no bearing in the present circumstances of the case. The learned court below has rightly rejected the such contention in the impugned judgment. 7. Regarding the second point about the bona fide necessity, the learned court below after scrutinising the evidence on record came to the conclusion that Sapan Paul and Milan Paul are not doing any business rather they are unemployed graduates. In evidence both Sapan and Milan have stated that after graduation the tried their level best to get any service but they failed in their attempt and they have further denied that they are not doing any business. Exts. E and F/1 referred to above could not be linked with Sapan Paul and Milan Paul but they related to Manik Paul who is admittedly doing the business on the contiguous suit premises. Taking it granted for argument sake that the defendant could be able to prove that Sapan and Milan Paul are doing business of Sil-Lorha and Pan Gumti then also bonafide necessity of the plaintiff cannot be questioned. Without doing any services, the graduate unemployed boys might be trying to earn something by doing some sort of business like Sil-Lorha and Pan Gumti, but admittedly those are being done either in rental premises or as a licensee in others premises. In that view of the matter, when they have got their own space they can legitimately claim the same premises for opening up their business by evicting the tenant. In that view of the matter, when they have got their own space they can legitimately claim the same premises for opening up their business by evicting the tenant. Bonafide is there on the face of it and hence the defence version of no bonafide necessity could not be proved by any evidence whatsoever. Two unemployed graduates sitting idle and doing some, flying business cannot be said to have no bonafide necessity for opening up their own business, hence on this point also, Mr. Roy a submission has got no force. 8. Regarding the vacant space on north of Manik Pauls shop, it has been arrived by the learned court below that even, if there is such existence of vacant space, the same is being utilised by Manik Paul as godown for his business purpose and, as such, there is no such vacant space available for opening up the business of two unemployed sons of the plaintiff, hence of this point also, there is no force in the submission of Mr. Roy. 9. About the partial evidence, the learned court below has decided Issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff. The shop premises is a very small one having measurement of 8 ft x 6 ft. The defendants themselves have given that measurement. The small area cannot be divided into two parts for giving two accommodations for the defendants also in giving partial evidence Moreover two sons of the plaintiff require the suit premises for opening up their business. In that view of the matter, the principle of partial evidence can have no bearing in the facts and .circumstances of the present case. 10. Thus all the submissions made in favour of the petitioner challenging the impugned of evidence have got no force in view of the discussions made above. In the deciding different issues framed in the suit, the learned court below took pain in discussing and scrutinising the evidence of both the parties to arrive at the concrate decision. 11. For the reasons above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the judgment of evidence passed by the learned court below and hence this revision petition has got no force and the same is dismissed but without costs.