JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Opposite party filed Eviction Suit No. 3 of 1992 for petitioners eviction from the suit premises detailed in the schedule to the plaint, which was one shop room with attached room measuring more or less 12 x 7 and 12 x 13 respectively, being a portion of the building standing on R.S. Plot No. 3346 at New Purulia Road of Jamshedpur town. 2. The said building belonged to the plaintiff and his brother. Hari Om Trehan and on partition. Northern portion thereof measuring 30.10" x 60 fell in plaintiffs share and the suit shop was a part of the said Northern portion of the building. 3. Admittedly, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Plaintiff was running business of Hosiery goods and his shop was situated in the portion of the said building, which was allotted to his brother. However, after partition, in the year 1983, the plaintiff continued in the said shop room as tenant on the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor under his brother on payment of monthly rent. Firstly, flu-plaintiff converted two rooms in the portion of the building allotted to him by raising walls on the Northern side for its use as residential purpose and vacated the four rooms on the first floor wherein he was living as tenant of his brother, after partition. 4. The portion which fell in the share of the plaintiff consisted four shop rooms, two residential rooms and a Kitchen. Plaintiffs brother insisted him to vacate the shop room and, therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises, as he was in dire necessity of the shop to run his own business. 5. On the defendants assurance, plaintiff vacated his brothers shop room in which he was running business, but the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises. 6. The suit premises was facing main road and adjacent to the passage of the plaintiffs house and was convenient place for his business, and as such he required it reasonably and in good faith for his own business of Hosiery goods, as he had no other place for the said purpose. The plaintiff required the entire suit premises for his purpose. 7. Defendant denied any partition between the plaintiff and his brother. 8. The plaintiff required the entire suit premises for his purpose. 7. Defendant denied any partition between the plaintiff and his brother. 8. The map submitted by the pleader Commissioner along with the report shows that the suit shop is situated just adjacent to the passage approaching the residential portion and was closed by raising walls, which have two wooden doors. Behind the shop of the defendant, there is stair case by which the plaintiff goes to the first floor of the double storied building. In the first floor of the building, his son. Sunil Kumar, was residing. 9. The contesting defendant claimed that the plaintiff has not vacated the shop room, wherein he was running hosiery business or on the presure of his brother, brought those hosiery goods in his residential house. 10. The suit shop was situated on the main road, whereas the two rooms, which were converted into residential accommodation were opening in a lane. 11. It is true that the plaintiffs nephew has started hosiery business in the shop room on the Southern portion, which was vacated-by the plaintiff and defendants assertion that, in fact, plaintiff was carrying his hosiery business therein through his nephew was not correct. 12. Trial Court also found that plaintiff was in need to covert the two shop rooms on the ground floor in the southern portion which was allotted to him, for residential purpose and the situation of the suit shop was most suitable for hosiery goods business by the plaintiff as it was adjacent to the passage approaching to his residential portion. The trial Court negatived defendants contention that plaintiff at present, who was 70 years old, was not expected to do business of hosiery goods. It was further held that since the plaintiff was separate in mess and business from his sons, the suit shop was required bona fide for his livelihood. 13. So far the question of partial eviction is concerned, from perusal of the averments made in the plaint as well as the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it was clear that he wanted to run hosiery goods business in the suit shop. The nature of the business was such, which required more space as well as go-down. 13. So far the question of partial eviction is concerned, from perusal of the averments made in the plaint as well as the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it was clear that he wanted to run hosiery goods business in the suit shop. The nature of the business was such, which required more space as well as go-down. Considering the total area of the suit premises in question, mentioned in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the judgment, it was rightly held that partial eviction of the defendant will not suffice the plaintiffs need. 14. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order. This Revision application is dismissed, but without costs. Let the lower court records be sent down immediately. 15. Revision application dismissed.