ORDER Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Heard the parties and perused lower Court records. Defendant is petitioner. Plaintiffs filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 8 of 1999 under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for defendants eviction from the suit shop, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint. 2. According to plaintiffs, suit shop was required for starting business by plaintiff No. 2, eldest son of plaintiff No. 1, who had no independent business and was sitting idle due to lack of suitable accommodation and wanted to start his independent business. Plaintiff No. 1 also wanted to start a steel box and other utensil business in the suit shop and due to enlargement of family wanted to reside in inner portion thereof. 3. Defendant denied plaintiffs alleged personal necessity for the suit shop and asserted that plaintiff No. 1 was already doing box selling business in holding No. 166 on Seth Surajmal Saraf Road with the help of his son Mani Shankar Keshri. Plaintiff No. 2 had also got a big workshop and showroom for box purposes situated on Shashi Bhushan Roy Road in a rented premises belonging to Ram Narain Mishra. He was not sitting idle. Plaintiffs with family members was residing in holding No. 163, which is a big double storied building. In ground floor front portion of said holding, plaintiff No. 1 with the help of said Mani Shankar Keshri was also running business of boxes, trunk etc. selling and plaintiffs had no difficulty in residential accommodation. 4. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 examined themselves respectively as PWs 11 and 8 but did not support alleged requirement of suit shop for plaintiff No. 1 for doing steel box and utensil business and/or for residing in inner portion of the suit shop. Both of them supported only case of requirement of suit shop for steel box business to be started by plaintiff No. 2. 5. Defendant failed to prove that plaintiff No. 2 was doing manufacturing business in the workshop on Shashi Bhushan Roy Road and that plaintiffs had got vacant space in their house situated in Hari Kishun Sah Lane, wherein plaintiff No. 2 can start business. In this regard defendants witness Santosh Kumar Sharma, DW 13 stated in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination that in Hari Kishun Sah Lane no business can be run as it was residential place. In this regard defendants witness Santosh Kumar Sharma, DW 13 stated in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination that in Hari Kishun Sah Lane no business can be run as it was residential place. It directly contradicted evidence of DW 16, who was son of defendant. It was, therefore, established that plaintiff was not doing any independent business and the available vacant space was not suitable for the purposed business of plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiffs had, therefore, bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit shop for personal use and occupation. 6. I find that trial Court has also considered question of partial eviction and found that opening of suit shop was only 7 on the road side and that if partition is made half and half then opening will be of both sides only 3-1/2 which can in no case cater the plaintiffs requirement, keeping in view nature of the proposed business of plaintiff No. 2. 7. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. This revision application is dismissed.