JUDGMENT : P.K. Deb, J. This revision petition is under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 against the JUDGMENT : and decree passed in Eviction Suit no. 2 of 1996 by the Munsif, Raxaul at Motihari. 2. The brief facts are as follows :- The opposite parties as plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises which is a shop run by the defendants. Originally the shop house was rented for four years and an agreement was executed on 31.7.1984 but the said agreement was extended orally till April. 1991 but even after that period the defendant did not vacate. Plaintiff no. 2 is the son of plaintiff no. 1 and the plaintiffs now want the suit premises for their bona fide necessity as plaintiff no. 2 being an educated unemployed youth wants to open a shop for readymade garments. When the plaintiffs demanded vacating of the shop house from the defendants he denied and hence this suit. 3. In the written statement filed the defendants has denied all the averments although relationship of the landlord and tenant has been admitted. According to the defendant, plaintiff no. 2 is still a student and prosecuting his studies in college and he is not an unemployed youth and there was no necessity of the suit house being vacated for the purpose of opening up a shop by the plaintiff no. 2. According to the defendant, this suit has been filed only with the pretext of pressurising the defendant for increase in the rate as on earlier occasion also the rents were being increased time to time. On earlier occasion the plaintiffs had filed an eviction suit being eviction suit no. 9 of 1994. The suit was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff no. 2, the son of the plaintiff no. 1 was a minor and the necessity as claimed could not be proved. An appeal was preferred being eviction appeal no. 2/1 of 1995-96. The appellate court has also upheld the dismissal ORDER :on two grounds that the son of the plaintiff was a minor and that the defendant could be able to prove that the eviction suit was a malafide one only to get the rent being increased. An appeal was preferred being eviction appeal no. 2/1 of 1995-96. The appellate court has also upheld the dismissal ORDER :on two grounds that the son of the plaintiff was a minor and that the defendant could be able to prove that the eviction suit was a malafide one only to get the rent being increased. The appellate JUDGMENT : was passed on 10.1.1996 and only after 3 to 4 months of such dismissal the present suit has been filed on the same necessity as was urged earlier. 4. Both parties adduced evidence after following issues were framed in the suit. (1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action for the suit. (iii) Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata under ORDER :2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (iv) Whether the plaintiffs have bonafide need (v) Whether there was fixed term tenancy and it has expired. (vi) To what reliefs if any, are the plaintiffs entitled. The plaintiff's side examined three witnesses while the defendants examined 12 witnesses. Out of whom D.W. 6, D.W. 11 and D.W. 12 are only formal witnesses. Various documents have already been filed from both sides and after scrutinising the evidence on record learned court below decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs. It was held that the plaintiffs no.2 had already given up his studies and in such a position plaintiff no.2 must have a need for opening up a business for which money has also been made available. The plea of the defendant that the suit was filed malafide as a pressurising tactics for increase of rent has also been turned down by the court below. 5. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Senior counsel appearing for and on behalf of the defendant-p6titioner has argued strenously that only 3 to 4 months prior to the filing of the present suit there was a decision by a court of law that there was no personal necessity of the plaintiffs and the suit was filed malafide for eviction as a pressurising tactics for increase of rent then only after 3 to 4 months there cannot be any worldly reason to come to decision otherwise by the Munsifs holding that there was bonafide need of the plaintiffs. Eviction suit can be filed successively and the need for personal necessity should be proved as existing on the date of cause of action or filing of the suit. On earlier occasion there was the same ground for personal necessity but at that time the plaintiffs could not prove that plaintiff no. 2 had given up his studies and that he being a minor there was no scope to hold such personal necessity or a valid ground for eviction of the defendant. But during the pendency of the earlier suit and the appeal the plaintiff no. 2 had given up his studies although attempt was made from the side of the defendants to show that she was still continuing in studies in the college at Motihari. But after scrutinising the evidence on record the learned Munsif came to the finding that the plaintiff no. 2 had given up his studies. From the evidence of the plaintiffs it also could be found that the plaintiff was very much in need to open up a garment shop for the business of his son i.e. plaintiff no. 2 then sitting idle. From all these factual aspects nothing could be shown by the learned senior counsel for the defendant that the learned Munsif has committed error due to misreading and non-reading of evidence in their proper perspective. It is true that this time also some evidence has been adduced from the side of the defendants to prove that there was discussion by the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant regarding increase of rent but the same could not be settled. But that was the only reason for which the suit has been filed as a pressurising tactics has been disbelieved by the learned Munsif. About three years back the plea for personal necessity could not be proved by the plaintiffs and as such when some evidence was there regarding enhancement of rent the learned appellate court observed that the eviction suit must have been filed as a pressurising tactics for enhancement of rent. But the main ground for failure of the earlier eviction suit was that the personal necessity could not be proved. 6. But in the present suit the plaintiff can be able to prove the personal necessity. But the main ground for failure of the earlier eviction suit was that the personal necessity could not be proved. 6. But in the present suit the plaintiff can be able to prove the personal necessity. It was stated by the plaintiffs that they want the shop house for the purpose of opening up a business of a readymade garments as the same was suitable for the purpose of selling of readymade garments as in the nearby area such shops have grown up. But it appears that the plaintiffs have never said as to how much area is needed for the purpose of opening up of ready made garments shop and the partial eviction as codified under the Bihar Building Control Act has not been considered by the learned court below. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the defendants have never stated either in their pleadings or in their evidence that they are ready for part eviction even. It has now become the settled principle of law that whether such plea has been taken by the defendants or not it remains the bounden duty of the court to see whether by a partial eviction the needs of personal necessity of the landlord can be settled or not. There is not an iota of evidence on that score nor there is finding by the learned court below. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that measurement of the shop is only 10' x 10' and there cannot be any scope for getting the said shop divided for the purpose of business of both the plaintiff no. 2 and the defendants. Needs are dependent on the paucity of its space. In a busy market complex business can also be done in small space depending upon the environment, condition and circumstances. A 10'x10' room may be insufficient for two families to reside but the same can be sufficient for the purpose of running two business by making a partition, if it is a busy market complex. 7. I find when there is no evidence to that effect the matter should be decided on the point discussed above by the learned court below. Thus this revision petition is allowed and the impunged JUDGMENT : and decree of eviction is set aside. 7. I find when there is no evidence to that effect the matter should be decided on the point discussed above by the learned court below. Thus this revision petition is allowed and the impunged JUDGMENT : and decree of eviction is set aside. But it is held that the plaintiffs could be able to prove their personal necessity and the matter is sent back for adjudication on the limited scope of partial eviction. If is further directed that the learned Munsif shall give opportunities to both the parties to adduce evidence on the point of partial eviction and then adjudicate the matter and pass a fresh ORDER :on this point alone and the other points which have already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs I hereby affirm. 8. The revision petition is thus allowed with the above observation and direction but no ORDER :as to costs.