ORDER This revision petition has been preferred under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, against the judgment and decree dated 23.11 .1995 and 7.12.1995 originally by the 1st Addl. Munsif, Darbhanga, in Eviction Suit No. 17/91 by which the defendants petitioners have been sought to be evicted on the ground of personal necessity by the plaintiff-opp. party. 2. Originally, one Maju Alar was the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff- opp. party is a retired government employee. He purchased the suit premises from Maju Mian for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Earlier to the sale deed there was a Mahadanama in favour of the plaintiff-opp. party on 16.9.1995 on an earnest money of Rs. 2,000/-. Subsequently, also a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to Maju Mian on 28.8.1988, and after payment of full consideration money the sale deed was executed on 21.6.1990. His name was, mutated in the municipal records and the records of the Government of Bihar. After retirement, the plaintiff opp. party filed the eviction suit for his own accommodation. It is stated that he had no accommodation in the town when he needs the same very much for which purchase was made by him. He has got two marriageable daughters and besides himself he has got his ailing wife residing jointly with him. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendants petitioners denied all the allegations of the plaintiff. According to them Maju Mian executed a Mahadanama in his favour on 12.5.1986 and on the basis of that Mahadanama the tenancy of the petitioner had been merged with his proposed ownership. When the sale deed was not executed on the basis of Mahadanama, the defendants petitioners brought Title Suit No. 52/89 against Maju Mian for specific performance of contract. During the tendency of the suit when he came to know that the suit premises had been transferred to the plaintiff-opp. party, he was also made a party in the above mentioned suit. According to him, he paid rent for the month of April, 1986 to Maju Mian. During the tendency of the suit when he came to know that the suit premises had been transferred to the plaintiff-opp. party, he was also made a party in the above mentioned suit. According to him, he paid rent for the month of April, 1986 to Maju Mian. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases and after adjudication learned court below came to the finding that the plaintiff has acquired title by right of his purchase and that when the tenancy is admitted and when the plaintiff 11as definite cause of action for getting judgement on the ground of personal necessity, the suit has been decreed. 4. Before this revisional court various submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioners. His first submission is that when question of title is involved then the decree in the eviction suit is not proper. His second submission is that personal necessity has not been properly adjudicated by the learned court below and the third and last submission is that the learned court below did not consider the question of partial eviction, as contemplated under the Act. All the submissions for and on behalf of the petitioners have been averted by the learned counsel for the opp. party and supported the impugned judgment and decree. His contention is that although a suit for specific performance 'is pending but the same cannot debar the plaintiff from proceeding with the eviction suit, as the defendants had never acquired any title over the suit property uptill now. His further contention is that in the present suit even the alleged agreement of sale had not been filed from the side of the defendants-petitioners. I find much force in the submission of the plaintiff-opp. party. Only because a suit for specific performance is pending wherein the plaintiff is also a party, the same alone cannot be said to be a barrier for granting an eviction decree in favour of the plaintiff when uptill date he has acquired title over the suit property subject to the decision in the specific performance suit. If the defendants-petitioners succeed in the suit under the Specific Relief Act then he would be entitled for restoration of possession. If the defendants-petitioners succeed in the suit under the Specific Relief Act then he would be entitled for restoration of possession. On the ground of personal necessity, the plaintiff has categorically stated that he purchased the suit property for his accommodation in the town area after his retirement and the suit has been filed after his superannuation stating therein that he is residing in his village homo along with his two marriageable daughters and ailing wife. It was admitted by him that his son who practises at Darbhanga as an advocate has also purchased a house wherein he lives with his family but the plaintiff cannot reside there. He has further stated that whenever he comes to Darbhanga for treatment of his ailing wife he sometimes stays in the government accommodation, if available, for retired persons or in a hotel, although it came in the evidence that sometimes he stays with his son also at his house, but that alone does not take away the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff to get the house vacated which has been purchased by him for his own accommodation. 5. About partial eviction it appears that the learned court below has not much discussed on this point but considering the position and situation of the suit house discarded the possibility of partial eviction. Admittedly, the suit house consists of two rooms, one latrine, one gali and an angan and it is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff has got two marriageable daughters besides himself and his ailing wife. In such circumstances two rooms and one latrine cannot be divided for the purpose of partial eviction. I am totally in agreement with the findings of the learned court below in this respect. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in this revision petition and hence the same is rejected. However, to give an opportunity to the defendants-Petitioners to search out an alternative accommodation the decree should not be put in execution for two months next if petitioners go on depositing the admitted rent.