Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Both these revision petitions have been heard together inter parties as they arise between the same parties and of the same subject matter. 2. Civil Revision No. 1487 of 1998 has been preferred under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction Control) Act challenging the eviction decree passed in Eviction case No. 6 of 1996 on 27.5.1998 by the Munsif, Ist, Chapra. While Civil Revision No. 2137 of 1998 has been preferred against the alleged forceful dispossession of the petitioner from the suit premises in the garb of the execution of the decree of the above mentioned eviction suit without giving any notice to the petitioner while the earlier revision petition was pending for adjudication before this Court, The suit premises is a small room measuring 8 x 10 on the road side. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant, admittedly while the property was a joint family property and afterwards a partition suit was filed and in that partition suit a compromise was arrived at and a decree was prepared on the basis of the compromise and as per that compromise decree the suit premises alongwith others had fallen into the share of the plaintiff-Opposite party. Admittedly the plaintiff is a widow and after her husbands death she maintains her livelihood and that of her minor son by herself. According to her she had taken training of stitching from an Institute at Sardha and also taken further training of Beauticianship and she has got the knowledge of painting. To increase her income for the purpose of livelihood she wants to open up a premises for stitching, Beauty Parlour and painting and, as such, she needs the suit premises badly for the purpose of her genuine personal necessity and, as such, the eviction suit was filed as mentioned above against the defendant. 3. That the defendant petitioner was a tenant in the suit premises has not been denied. That the plaintiff was also a share-holder in the joint family properties has also not been denied. It was only stated that the compromise decree was obtained on suppression of many facts but the relationship of the landlord and tenant has not been specifically denied in the pleadings of the defendant. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. That the plaintiff was also a share-holder in the joint family properties has also not been denied. It was only stated that the compromise decree was obtained on suppression of many facts but the relationship of the landlord and tenant has not been specifically denied in the pleadings of the defendant. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. In support of her contention the landlord Opposite party had submitted a certificate showing her training regarding stitching. In her evidence she has also stated that how she could get training of Beautician & although she has stated that she had received a certificate of the training of Beauty Parlour the same has not been submitted. After consideration of the evidence on record learned Court befow came to the finding that the plaintiff has got the bonafide personal necessity and hence the suit has been decreed for eviction. During the course of discussion the learned Court below has also considered the question of partial eviction whether that would suffice the needs of the plaintiff. As per evidence of the parties learned Court below came to the finding that the suit premises being a small one cannot be partitioned to suffice the needs of both plaintiff and the defendant and that the defendant was also not agreeable for the purpose of partial eviction. 4. Before this Court challenge has been made on the finding of the eviction to the effect that although the plaintiff had claimed that she got the suit premises in her share in the partition suit but no documents had been supplied, although there was challenge from the side of the defendant regarding that partition decree. The existence of the partition decree has not been denied but it has been pleaded from the side of the defendant petitioner that such partition decree of compromise was procured by concealment and suppression of facts. It was rightly decided by the learned Court below that there was no locus standi of the defendant to challenge the validity of the partition decree. When the existence of the partition decree is admitted, then the defendant-petitioner cannot now challenge the plantiffs title over the suit property. It was rightly decided by the learned Court below that there was no locus standi of the defendant to challenge the validity of the partition decree. When the existence of the partition decree is admitted, then the defendant-petitioner cannot now challenge the plantiffs title over the suit property. Moreover nowhere in the pleadings or in the evidence the relationship of the landlord and the tenant has been specifically denied, in that view of the matter I do not find any irregularity in the findings of the learned Court below regarding the issue of relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. 5. Regarding the personal necessity it has been argued that the plaintiff could not prove by cogent evidence that she has got training of Beauty Parlour and that the certificate regarding stitching is only a manufactured and forged one. On consideration of the evidence on record and on consideration of the certificate the learned Court below has rightly held that the petitioner could prove her personal necessity when it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff being a widow is making all efforts to maintain her livelihood along with her minor son by herself alone. Moreover the defendant has stated that the needs of the plaintiff can be satisfied if she opens her shop in any other property which she got by way of partition so the personal need as claimed from the side of the plaintiff has not been categorically denied from the side of the defendant and from the circumstances also it was rightly held by the learned Court below that there was genuine and real need of the plaintiff to increase her income for maintaining herself and her minor son. 6. It has further been argued before this Court that the suit premises is too small to cater the need of the plaintiff for opening of shop for three purposes, namely, for stitching, Beauty Parlour and Painting but the plaintiff had stated in her evidence that she will somehow manage in the suit premises itself to open her business as the same is a road facing one. All points raised from the side of the defence had been taken consideration of by the Court below while granting decree of eviction and the decree of eviction does not suffer from any flaw of law or jurisdiction. All points raised from the side of the defence had been taken consideration of by the Court below while granting decree of eviction and the decree of eviction does not suffer from any flaw of law or jurisdiction. Hence the Revision petition, namely, C.R. No. 1487 of 1998 has got no force and the same is rejected but no order as to costs in the circumstances. 7. Regarding C.R. No. 2131 of 1998 it appears that although the revision petition was preferred against the eviction decree but no stay order was obtained by the petitioner in that civil revision and, as such the decree- holder Opposite party had got every right to put the decree in execution. Accordingly possession was taken by putting the decree into execution. The only grievance of the petitioner is that while taking possession in the execution proceeding no notice had been issued to the petitioner judgment debtor. The decree (sic) had been put into possession within a year of the granting of the decree and, as such, the judgment debtor is not entitled to a notice as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 22 of the C.P.C. after amendment of the C.P.C. in the year 1976. Thus the delivery of possession in execution of the decree without notice to the judgment debtor cannot be said to be an illegal or irregular one. The petitioner had taken no steps to take stay order from this Court when revision petition was preferred. 8. In that view of the matter C.R. No. 2137 of 1998 has also got no force and hence the same is rejected but no order as to costs.