Judgment P.K. Deb, J. This Revision petition has been preferred by the above named defendant- petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by Sub-ordinate Judge III Samastipur in Title Eviction Suit No. 14 of 1984 whereby the defendant-petitioner has been evicted from the house bearing holding No. 237/A appertaining to Khesra No. 381, 382 (part) under Samastipur Municipality, the description of which has been given in detail in Schedule 0 of the plaint. 2. The admitted position remains that one Srimati Asha Devi wife of Baij Nath Sah @ Lakhan Sah was the original owner of the suit premises and the defendant was inducted by her as a tenant in the suit premises at a rental of Rs.50/- per month. The plaintiff-Opposite party purchased the house in question from said Asha Devi under registered sale-deed dated 3.1.1981 from his personal income, but in the sale deed the name of father Ganga Sah was wrongly entered as another vendee. After sale Asha Devi informed the defendant-tenant to pay the rent to the plaintiff and accordingly the defendant started making payment of rent of the suit house to the plaintiff and subsequently in the month of May, 1982 the rent was enhanced from Rs.50/- to Rs.75/- per month. According to the plaintiff he had his vegetable shop in Gudri Bajar Market which was under the control of Samastipur Municipality but those shop house in the Gudri Bazar Market were demolished and new shop houses were constructed and were settled with the highest bidders and unfortunately the plaintiff could not be able to get an allotment in the newly constructed shops. The plaintiff then started his vegetable shop on road near Bhutnath Chowk. The suit house is required for shifting of the vegetable shop of the plaintiff to the suit house and which is just near the vegetable market in the Gudri Bazar area. On the ground of such personal necessity the eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. According to the defendant there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the correct state of affairs has not been properly stated and suppressed by the plaintiff. The defendant-petitioner has raised the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. According to the defendant there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the correct state of affairs has not been properly stated and suppressed by the plaintiff. The defendant-petitioner has raised the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties. According to the defendant Ganga Sah father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and he constituted a joint Hindu Mitakshra family alongwith his two sons, namely, Ram Nath Sah and Ram Chandra Sah and the wife Kalo Devi. After the death of Ganga Sah the eldest son Ram Chandra Sah became the Karta of the family and during the pendency of this eviction suit Ram Chandra Sah made a Mahdanama in favour of the defendant for sale of the suit premises for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- and advance of Rs.1100/- was taken by Ram Chandra Sah. The Mahdanama was executed by Ram Chandra Sah not only for himself but for the other coparceners also as the karta of the joint coparcenery. When Ram Chandra Sah failed to execute the sale deed on the basis of the Mahdanama the defendant filed Title Suit No. 43 of 1987 for specific performance of contract against Ram Chandra Sah karta of the joint coparcenery. It is further stated by the defendant during the course of trial of the eviction suit that after the Mahdanama was executed practically the eviction suit was abandoned and the same was dismissed for default but afterwards it has been revived with ulterior motive. On the ground of personal necessity it has been denied from the side of the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff is running his vegetable shop at Bhutnath Chowk and there is no necessity of the suit house to be evicted. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: "1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action or right to sue? 3. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant? 4. Whether plaintiff reasonably and in good faith requires the suit house for personal necessity? 5. Whether status and position of the defendant as of tenant has changed after the execution of the alleged mahdanama dt. 3. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant? 4. Whether plaintiff reasonably and in good faith requires the suit house for personal necessity? 5. Whether status and position of the defendant as of tenant has changed after the execution of the alleged mahdanama dt. 31.8.1985 said to have been executed by Ram Chandra Sah in respect of the suit house in favour of the defendant and whether the possession of the defendant can be protected under section 53A of the T.P. Act?" 3. For and on behalf of the plaintiff altogether 25 witnesses have been examined, out of which 16 witnesses are of formal nature. P.W.20 is Ramnath Sah the plaintiff himself whereas P.W.13 is Ram Chandra Sah (now dead) the brother of the plaintiff and P.W.19 is Kalo Devi the mother. Other witnesses are on point of personal necessity as claimed from the side of the plaintiff. 4. On behalf of the defendant altogether 20 witnesses have been examined, out of whom six are formal in nature. D.W.20 is Sailendra Kumar Chaurasia defendant himself, D.Ws. 2 to 6, 8, 12 and 16 are the witnesses on the point of jointness of Kalo Devi, Ramnath Sah and Ramchandra Sah. Issues no. 3, 5 and 6 have been jointly taken up by the learned Court below for the purpose of decision and came to the finding that there was relationship existing between the plaintiff and the defendant arid that Ram Chandra Sah and Kalo Devi were not the necessary parties to the suit. Some decisions have also been made with respect to the Mahdanama and its validity with which we are not concerned for the purpose of decision in the present suit. In respect of personal necessity issue No.4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has got the dire need of the suit house for the purpose of shifting his vegetable business and then the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 5. It may be mentioned here that this eviction suit and the suit for specific performance were tried simultaneously by the learned court below and almost all the witnesses are common and documents are also common in both the suits. 5. It may be mentioned here that this eviction suit and the suit for specific performance were tried simultaneously by the learned court below and almost all the witnesses are common and documents are also common in both the suits. Title Suit No. 43 of 1987 has been dismissed and against that the defendant- petitioner has also preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 9 of 1984 which is now pending in the court of IVth Additional District Judge, Samastipur. 6. Before hearing of this revision petition an affidavit with petition was filed from the side of the petitioner to get the present revision petition stayed till the decision of the title appeal but that petition has been pressed and I also found that such petition has got no force as both the suits although tried by the same Court stood on different footing and there is no need for stay of the eviction suit or its revision thereof till the disposal of the suit for specific performance. Even if the eviction decree is maintained and afterwards the title appeal is allowed and the defendant's suit is decreed for specific performance then also the defendant shall be at liberty to take possession of the suit premises. 7. The main point urged on behalf of the defendant-petitioner is that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. Much stress has been given on the purchase deed regarding the suit properties. Admittedly vendees as per the purchase deed was not only the plaintiff but his father Ganga Sah was also there. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the property from his own income and the name of Ganga Sah has just been wrongly included as a Vendee in the purchase deed. On the other hand it was the contention of the defendant that the suit property was purchased by Ganga Sah as Karla of the joint coparcenery from the joint family fund. Some evidence has been adduced to that effect from the side of the defendant. On the other hand plaintiff's side proved a series of documents by which it could be shown that the plaintiff was having personal income and he has purchased many other property either in his own name or in the name of his wife. Some evidence has been adduced to that effect from the side of the defendant. On the other hand plaintiff's side proved a series of documents by which it could be shown that the plaintiff was having personal income and he has purchased many other property either in his own name or in the name of his wife. Kalo Devi and Ramchandra Sah, mother and brother of the plaintiff, had supported the case of the plaintiff to the effect that the suit property belonged to plaintiff alone. 8. In an eviction suit we are not much concerned about the perfection of title with regard to the suit property. We are concerned whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the plaintiff after purchase the vendor Asha Devi informed the defendant to pay rent to the plaintiff and accordingly defendant started paying rent to the plaintiff and subsequently the rate of rent was even increased by the plaintiff which also defendants started to pay. In this respect some vital documents have been proved from the side of the plaintiff. Some counter foils of rent receipts issued by Ram Nath Sah to the defendant has been exhibited. Those were exhibit-5 series but the veracity of those documents have been challenged from the side of the defendant to the effect that none of those counter foils bear the signature of the defendant. Leaving aside those also the plaintiff's side proved the entries in the post man book as Ext.9 series by which it was shown that the defendant sent money orders with regard to the rent to the plaintiff which was refused from the side of the plaintiff and further proof was there that after refusal those money orders had been returned back to the defendant which established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. I am not going to consider those matters regarding the payment of holding tax by the plaintiff, regarding ownership of the suit premises by the plaintiff alone as those are not matters to be considered in the suit. If the relationship of the landlord and tenant is established between the plaintiff and the defendant then the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendant for eviction. If the relationship of the landlord and tenant is established between the plaintiff and the defendant then the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendant for eviction. Let me now take the worst possible case that the plaintiff alone is not the owner of the suit premises rather he alongwith his father had purchased the suit properties and, as such, on his father's death his brother and mother also became joint owners of the properties. There is nothing to show that there was any partition of the suit properties and it was also the case of the plaintiff that the property remained joint amongst the plaintiff, his elder brother Ram Chandra Sah and mother Kalo Devi. Even if there is joint ownership then also a co-sharer without impleading the other co-sharers can maintain a eviction suit against the tenant. This is the settled principle as held by full bench of this Court as reported in 1987 PLJR 978 (Sharfuddin vs. Bibi Khatija). The Apex Court has also held in the same line as reported in (1976) 4 S.C.C. 184 (Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and others). Thus, even if there are other co-sharers then also plaintiff can alone file an eviction suit and get the decree and other co-sharers may not be made parties in the suit. In the present case other co-sharers although may not be made party but they have come forward to depose in favour of the plaintiff as P.W.13 and P.W.19 whether Ram Chandra Sah was the karta putra (adopted son) of Sarjug Sah brother of Ganga Sah who died issueless is a matter not to be considered in the present case. The fact remains that the plaintiff and his father purchased the suit properties and the defendant was attorned to the plaintiff and he alone realised the rent from the defendant. Thus, in the suit there is no defect and the learned court below has elaborately discussed the matter and came to the reasonable decision. His decision does not suffer from any non-reading or misreading of the evidence and the inference arrived at is legal and justified. There is nothing to interfere on such finding regarding the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. 9. His decision does not suffer from any non-reading or misreading of the evidence and the inference arrived at is legal and justified. There is nothing to interfere on such finding regarding the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. 9. Regarding the personal necessity it is the specific case of the plaintiff that earlier he was having a vegetable shop in Gudri Bazar but after eviction by municipality and construction of new shop house the plaintiff has been deprived of getting any allotment of shop in Gudri Bazar Market and then he started to sell vegetables on road at Bhutnath Chowk but from there also he had to be removed and, as such, he is badly in need of the suit house for the purpose of running his vegetable shop. On the other hand it is the defendant's case that the plaintiff has no necessity when he is having his vegetable business at Bhutnath Chowk. Taking this for granted that the plaintiff is having vegetable business at Bhutnath Chowk near the road then also he has got every right to get his own house to be vacated for the purpose of shifting his vegetable shop as selling by the side of the road creates always apprehension of being evicted by encroachment drive. The learned court below has rightly held that the plaintiff's personal necessity is bonafide, genuine and on good faith. There is nothing to interfere on it. 10. It appears while granting eviction decree on personal necessity the learned court below has not considered the question of partial eviction. It is true that this plea has not been taken from the side of the defendant but it has now become settled principle of law as enunciated not only of this Court but also by the Apex Court that it is the bounden duty of the court to see whether partial eviction of the suit premises can suffice the need of the plaintiff or not, whether there is plea from the side of the defendant or not to that effect. Although voluminous evidence has been recorded by the court below of the witnesses adduced from both the sides but on this point practically there is no evidence on record as is found on scrutiny. When no evidence is there, there is little scope of this revisional court to consider that matter in the revisional jurisdiction. Although voluminous evidence has been recorded by the court below of the witnesses adduced from both the sides but on this point practically there is no evidence on record as is found on scrutiny. When no evidence is there, there is little scope of this revisional court to consider that matter in the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this point of partial eviction is required to be decided by the Court below after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence. 11. In the result, revision petition is allowed and the eviction decree is set aside and the eviction suit is sent back to the Court below for deciding the point of partial eviction alone for the purpose of grant of eviction decree or not. It should be mentioned here that this remand is on the limited scope of the partial eviction but other issues decided by the learned court below are hereby upheld and confirmed. As the eviction suit is a long pending one the records of the Court below be remitted back immediately alongwith the copy of the judgment so that the learned Court below can decide the point of partial eviction within three months next without giving laxity of delaying tactics to either of the parties. 12. The Revision petition is thus, allowed but no order as to costs in the circumstances.