JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. - Holding No. 227 situated in Bokapur Mohalla of Munger town belonged to Bibi Sadrunnissa, wife of Md. Ishrafil, who died leaving behind three sons, including the plaintiff Md. Parvez Alam and four daughters. The defendant was tenant in a portion of the said holding, described in Schedule B to the plaint on monthly rental of Rs. 100/- and was running a tailoring shop therein. 2. The suit was filed under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of personal necessity that the plaintiff required it to start tailoring business of his own as he was unemployed. The defendant admitted himself to be a tenant in the suit premises, but denied the plaintiff's claim of personal necessity. 3. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was owner of the suit premises and was able to prove his personal necessity and partial eviction of the defendant could not have satisfied the plaintiff's requirement. 4. Mr. Amla Kant Chaudhary, Senior Counsel for the defendant petitioner submitted that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to file the present suit for eviction. During pendency of the suit the plaintiff started tailoring business in another room of holding no. 297 in his possession and as such his requirement was satisfied. He was not an unemployed, rather he was also running a tailoring shop at Giridih. 5. Mr. Chaudhary further submitted that finding on partial eviction was not tenable. The trial court was required to find whether partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises (Schedule B) could have satisfied the plaintiff's requirement or not, whereas it held that small room in possession of the plaintiff, wherein he was said to have started tailoring shop during pendency of the suit was not sufficient for his business and on this ground negatived partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, counsel for the opposite party submitted that within the term 'landlord' as definded under Section 2(f) of the Act, persons entitled to receive rent was also included. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff was one of the sons of Bibi Sadrunnissa and as such he was also one of the co-owners of holding no. 297. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff was one of the sons of Bibi Sadrunnissa and as such he was also one of the co-owners of holding no. 297. It was immaterial whether the plaintiff or any of his other brothers was receiving rent from the defendant. There was, therefore, relationship of landlord of tenant between the parties. 7. Mr. Sinha further submitted that since plaintiff was unemployed and there was no source of his livelihood and the suit filed under Section 14 of the Act remained pending for two years and so in 1995 for the purpose of livelihood he had to start tailoring shop in the aforesaid small portion in the meantime. 8. I find that plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity for starting tailoring business of his own, which remained pending for several years and in such situation if the plaintiff for his livelihood started tailoring shop in a small portion available with them, which was admittedly not sufficient for his purpose, then it cannot be said that his personal necessity for the suit premises vanished on this subsequent event during pendency of the suit. 9. I further find that the plaintiff in his evidence as P.W.8 denied to have got any tailoring shop at Giridih. The defendant was neither above to demolish his denial nor adduced any evidence to prove existence of any tailoring shop of plaintiff at Giridih. 10. Actual area of the suit premises was not clear from its description in Schedule B to the plaint, so a Pleader Commissioner was appointed by the trial court. According to his report and deposition of P.W. 7 area of the suit premises was 11' x 8' and area of the adjacent premises, wherein the plaintiff has started tailoring shop during pendency of suit was 8' x 3' x 2'. Defendant no. 1 while being examined in the suit as D. W. 1 in paragraph 55 of his evidence admitted that a tailoring business required more space than what was available in the suit premises. So it is clear that only after amalgamating the suit premises with the aforesaid small portion of the holding no.297 available with the plaintiff his requirement can be satisfied and there was no possibility of partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. 11. So it is clear that only after amalgamating the suit premises with the aforesaid small portion of the holding no.297 available with the plaintiff his requirement can be satisfied and there was no possibility of partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. 11. I find no merit in this Civil Revision Application. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.