Judgment V.N.Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kumar for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Chandra Prasad Sinha for the opposite party on the interlocutory application bearing No. 4500 of 2003 wherein prayer has been made to condone 34 days delay in filing this civil revision application. 2. It appears from perusal of the interlocutory application that the aforesaid delay in filing the civil revision application was caused on account of erroneous advice tendered by the counsel for the petitioners that period of 90 days is available for filing the revision under Sub-section 8 of Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act, 1982 from the date of judgment and decree passed under the said Act. As the delay in filing the civil revision application was caused due to the erroneous advice of the learned counsel and period of limitation for filing the revision under the Act is sixty days, I deem it expedient to condone the delay in filing this civil revision application. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay of 34 days in filing the civil revision application is condoned. Having condoned the delay, I heard the counsel for the parties on the merits of the civil revision application. 3. By this civil revision application the tenant-petitioners assailed the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2003 passed by Shri Bimal Kumar Sinha, Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda in eviction suit No. 9 of 1999 whereby he has decreed the eviction suit and has directed the tenant-petitioners to vacate the suit premises within a period of three months from the date of judgment/decree. Before considering the submissions of the parties it is necessary to mention a few facts. Shri Gulam Rasool, father of the tenant-petitioners was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises in the year 1970 at a monthly rent of Rs.60/- by the landlord-opposite party No. 1. Shri Rasool had established a Parchun shop in the said premises. The rent of the premises was enhanced from time to time and in the year 1998 a sum of Rs. 300/- per month was being paid. After the death of Sri Rasool the petitioners continued with the shop which their father had established in the tenanted premises. The landlady had two sons, namely, Rajendra Kumar, petitioner No. 2 and Anil Kumar, who was earlier employed with P.I. Financial Services as a manager. 300/- per month was being paid. After the death of Sri Rasool the petitioners continued with the shop which their father had established in the tenanted premises. The landlady had two sons, namely, Rajendra Kumar, petitioner No. 2 and Anil Kumar, who was earlier employed with P.I. Financial Services as a manager. The said P.I. Financial Services was closed in 1997 whereafter aforesaid Anil Kumar became unemployed. In order to provide gainful employment to Anil Kumar, who desired to establish a medicine shop in the tenanted premises the land lady requested the tenants to vacate the premises. When her request to vacate the premises was not carried out she filed the present eviction suit, so that, the tenanted premises may be vacated and the same may be used by her unemployed son Anil Kumar for establishing the business of medicine shop. Defendants-tenant appeared in the suit and after seeking leave to contest they filed written statement in which they admitted the landlord tenant relationship but denied the claim of the plaintiffs that the shop premises was required to provide gainful employment to the younger son of the landlady Anil Kumar. In support of their case both the parties adduced oral/ documentary evidence. Plaintiffs examined as many as six witnesses and defendants examined nineteen witnesses. The trial court having considered the case of the two sides in detail with reference to both oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit under the impugned judgment and decree and held that the plaintiffs/landlord required the suit premises for their personal use so as to establish the medicine shop to gainfully employ the younger son Anil Kumar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have assailed the impugned judgment and decree on two grounds. That perusal of the evidence of the parties including that of defendants would establish that the plaintiffs have no personal necessity as the younger son Anil Kumar is already gainfully employed in connection with dairy business of his father. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the evidence of D.Ws 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, & 19. While referring to the evidence of the aforesaid D.Ws. learned counsel led special emphasis over the evidence of D.Ws. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the evidence of D.Ws 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, & 19. While referring to the evidence of the aforesaid D.Ws. learned counsel led special emphasis over the evidence of D.Ws. 6, 9 & 19, as those witnesses specifically deposed that as and when they went to the dairy premises to purchase milk for their use they noticed the presence of Anil Kumar in the dairy premises associating himself with dairy business. Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the plaintiffs that they required the suit premises for establishing medicine shop in order to gainfully employ Anil Kumar should not be believed as Anil Kumar has no degree/diploma in pharmacy which is necessary to establish a medicine shop. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the trial court that partial eviction from the suit premises will not suffice the needs of the landlord is also erroneous and have been recorded without even ascertaining the actual length/width of the premises as also ignoring the tact that the premises is situate on the corner of the plot and is facing road on two sides. 5. In this connection, he invited my attention to the following findings recorded by the trial court: "Chunki sai takrari ke doo oor utter aur purab road hai aur sai takrari ka nikas dono aur hai jismen satar laga hooya hai. Attah sai takrari ka aansik bibhajan kia ja sakta hai? Jabki wadi paksh ke bidwan adhiwakta Sri Indrajit Prasad ne kaha ki sai takrari me hi ek kothri dookan ke bagal me hai jiska byabhar pratibadi paksh hi kar rahe hain lekin dookan mai kothri ka aansik bibhajan sambhab nahin hota hai pakshkaron ke tark soona tha abhilekh par uplabhd sakshion ke abhi kathan ke aadhar par yeh paya jata hai ki sai takrari dookan mai kothri kisi ek byakti ke byabsay ke liya upyukt hai Halanki pratibadi paksh ne apne bahas ke dauran kaha ki Utter-Dakshin sai takrari ki lambai 11 feet ba chaurai Parab-Pashim 15-16 feet hai, lekin abhilekh par adhiwakta aayhukt ka pratibedan me aisa kuch bhi barnan nahin hain aur pratibadi paksh kabhi bhi nayalaya ke samaksh survey jankari adhibakta aayukta ko le jane ki prarthana nahin kiya jisse sai takrari ki bastabik paimise karai ja sakti thi/ bartman awastha me Nayalaya ke samaksh takrari ki koi paimise nahi hai. Aisi isthi me wadi paksh ke kathan me bal milta hai aur sai takrari ka aansik bibhajan karna Nayalaya ke liya sabhawik nahi hoga aur yeh ek byabharik kadam hoga. Ish tarah yeh wadi paksh ke paksh me nirdharit kiya jata hai." 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party refuted the aforesaid submissions and submitted that from perusal of the evidence of the plaintiffs as also the defendants it would appear that Anil Kumar was earlier employed as a Manager in the P.I. Financial Services which organisation was permanently closed in the year 1997 and since then he is unemployed. The evidence further clarified that while being unemployed Anil Kumar is only assisting his father in supervising the dairy business as he has no other better engagement of his own. The evidence adduced nowhere suggests that Anil Kumar is the sole proprietor and incharge of the dairy business. In this connection, learned counsel for the opposite party referred to the evidence of D.W. 3 which specifically stated that Anil Kumar was earlier employed in the P.I. Financial Services and since its closer he is looking after the dairy. Learned counsel with reference to the evidence of the defendants further suggested that the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants had no means of special knowledge in regard to the affairs of dairy business and, as such, their evidence should not be relied upon. 7. In regard to the submission that degree/diploma is necessary for establishing medicine shop, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that medicine shop is eastablished on the basis of drug licence issued under the Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1940 and in terms of those provisions it is not at all necessary to obtain a diploma/degree in pharmacy for establishing a medicine shop. 8. In regard to the findings recorded by the trial court with respect to the partial eviction also, learned counsel submitted that the same should not be disturbed as the same has been recorded after taking into account the relevant aspect of the matter and, in this connection, relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Santosh Kumar & Ors. V/s. Jugal Kishore Burnwal & Ors. 2002 P.L.J.R. (1) 621. 9. V/s. Jugal Kishore Burnwal & Ors. 2002 P.L.J.R. (1) 621. 9. Having considered the evidence of the parties, I am satisfied that the trial court has rightly concluded that the suit premises is required for the purposes of providing gainful employment to Anil Kumar, who is unemployed since the closer of the P.I. Financial Services in the year 1997. 10. The contention of the tenant-petitioners, that the desire of the plaintiffs to establish medicine shop in the tenanted premises cannot be frutified, as Anil Kumar has no diploma/degree in pharmacy, is also misconceived as provisions of the Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1940 whereunder drug licence is issued for establishing medicine shop do not require holding of any degree/diploma in pharmacy for establishing the medicine shop. 11. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in regard to partial eviction, however, merits consideration, as perusal of the aforequoted portion of the findings recorded by the trial court, indicates that the findings of the trial court in regard to partial eviction are not in accordance with proviso to Section 11(1) (c) of the Act. It appears from the aforequoted portion that the failure of the plaintiffs as also the advocate commissioner to provide the measurement of the premises in question in the plaint and the report of the Commissioner respectively has loaded the dice against the tenant-petitioners. The trial court, in this connection, has adversely commented against the tenant-petitioners that he did not take steps for appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to measure the size and draw the map of the premises. This approach of the trial court is vitiated in law. For failure of the plaintiffs/pleader commissioner to provide for the measurement and topography of the premises in question defendant-petitioners could not have been adversely commented upon. The eviction suit has been brought by the plaintiffs-landlord and it is for him to establish his case including the fact that partial eviction from the premises would not satisfy the case of the parties. 12. In view of the aforesaid erroneous approach of the trial court, I deem it expedient that the matter in regard to partial eviction should once again be examined after appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner, who should clearly submit a report in regard to the size and topography of the suit premises. 12. In view of the aforesaid erroneous approach of the trial court, I deem it expedient that the matter in regard to partial eviction should once again be examined after appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner, who should clearly submit a report in regard to the size and topography of the suit premises. The report should also clarify as to whether the suit premises is situate on the corner of the plot and is bounded by roads on both sides. Besides other evidence, if necessary, may also be permitted to be adduced at the discretion of the trial court. The aforesaid findings in regard to partial eviction must be recorded within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. This civil revision application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. 14. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted at the bar that there is no presiding officer in the court of Munsif Biharsharif, Nalanda, since the transfer of Shri Bimal Kumar Sinha, who recorded the impugned judgment, and, as such, the direction under this order, to record findings in regard to partial eviction within the time frame fixed by this court under this order may not be carried out. 15. Considering the aforesaid aspect, I direct that this order be placed before learned District Judge, Biharsharif, Nalanda, who shall ensure that the records of the suit is placed before any other appropriate court of competent jurisdiction, so that, the directions passed under this order should be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.