Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. The sole petitioner was the sole defendant in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1992, which was filed by the sole opposite party (Plaintiff) for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises, which is a construction over the lands measuring 5 Dhurs and is being used for commercial purposes by the defendant and hence the suit proceeded under the provision of sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). 2. This Civil revision has been filed under the proviso to sec. 14(8) of the Act, against the order of petitioners eviction vide judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1998, by which the learned Munsif-II, Madhubani decreed the aforesaid eviction suit and directed the defendant-petitioner to vacate the suit premises. 3. The plaintiffs claim in short was that the original owner of the suit premises was one Moti Lal Raut, who got the same by way of partition among his co-sharers with respect to his entire ancestral properties, which included the suit premises also. He further claimed that the said Moti Lal Raut gifted the suit property to his nephew Rameshwar Raut by a registered deed of gift dated 12/16.12.1970, whereafter Rameshwar Raut came in possession of the said premises and inducted the defendant as his tenant. It is also claimed that later Rameshwar Raut gifted the said property to the plaintiff by a registered deed of gift dated 6.6.1990, whereafter the defendant became the tenant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed that his son was sitting idle due to paucity of space and wanted to do Cement and Hardware business in the suit premises, for which he also had sufficient experience. 4. On the other hand, the defendant contested the suit and stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as he was neither inducted by the plaintiff nor even by his predecessor in interest and he never paid rent to either of them. 4. On the other hand, the defendant contested the suit and stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as he was neither inducted by the plaintiff nor even by his predecessor in interest and he never paid rent to either of them. He further claimed that in the year 1947 the defendant came from Pakistan as a refugee and since the suit land was vacant, he occupied the same due to the sympathy of the people of the area and made construction over it and started his business and at present he is doing his oil business therein. He further claimed that he had been in open and continuous possession of the suit premises since more than 40 years prior to the filing of the suit without any objection from any one including the plaintiff and had acquired title by adverse possession, hence there was no occasion for his eviction on the assumption that he was merely a tenant. 5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them the learned Court below decreed the said eviction suit by the impugned order holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit and also that the plaintiffs requirement for the suit premises was genuine and bonafide and no partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises would suffice the plaintiffs requirement. 6. The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has challenged the said impugned order of eviction on various grounds. He claimed that neither there was any Kirayanama, nor there was any rent receipt, nor there was any sufficient material to prove the tenancy and hence the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not established. He further claimed that the trial Court went deeply into the question of title between the parties and arrived at a finding that the defendant had no title, although the suit was for eviction under the Act, and the Court had no occasion to go into the question of title as a full-fledged issue, specially when the defendant was claiming title on the basis of adverse possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claimed that there was no specific finding of the trial Court that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and hence the finding of personal necessity of the plaintiff was also erroneous, specially when the plaintiff was not examined as a witness in the suit and the learned Court below failed to consider even a single defendant witness while passing the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner also claimed that the relationship of landlord and tenant was presumed by the learned Court below only on the basis of Exhibits 7 and 7/a, which are said to be the defendants application before the District Industries Centre, although they were neither called from the concerned authority, nor was produced by the defendant. It was also claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of partial eviction was clearly erroneous as the Court arrived at the said finding merely on one assumption that the area was small. In this connection he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shyama Kant Jha and Anr. V/s. Smt. Shakuntala Pandey, reported in 2004 (3) BLJR 2215 in which two rooms were involved and the trial Court had only said that the area was small. Hence he submitted that the impugned order of the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party contested the claim of the defendant-petitioner and averred that the learned Court below had passed its impugned order after considering the pleadings of the parties and also after appreciating the evidence adduced by them as well as the provisions of law applicable thereto he further claimed that the learned Court below had fully considered all the essential ingredients and requirements for passing an order of eviction and hence there was no illegality in the said order due to which it does not require any interference. 8. It is quite apparent from the plaint of the suit as well as Exhibit 2 (gift deed of 16.12.1970) that Moti Lal Raut, Rameshwar Raut and the plaintiff belonged to the same family and no objection had been raised by the defendant against the original title of Moti Lal Raut and the subsequent registered deeds of gift. 8. It is quite apparent from the plaint of the suit as well as Exhibit 2 (gift deed of 16.12.1970) that Moti Lal Raut, Rameshwar Raut and the plaintiff belonged to the same family and no objection had been raised by the defendant against the original title of Moti Lal Raut and the subsequent registered deeds of gift. Furthermore, since the defendant claims adverse possession, hence he naturally admits plaintiff to be the owner against whom he claims hostile title, thus the trial Court had rightly held that the defendant admits the title of the plaintiff. 9. Moreover, the defendant did not fulfil the basic criteria for showing adverse possession as he had neither any where pleaded or proved that as to from which date he was in possession of the suit premises, nor he had claimed any hostile possession, rather the defendant himself admitted in his applications (Exts. 7 and 7/a) duly signed by him that the suit premises was taken on rent by him these letters were sent to the Court by the District Industries Centre vide its letter (Ext. 6) but the defendant never raised any objection to those exhibits during the pendency of the suit. 10. It has also been proved by valid and reliable evidence that the holding in question throughout stood in the name of the members of the plaintiffs family and Municipal receipts were regularly issued to them by the Government authorities, to which also the defendant had never objected. In addition to that the predecessor of the plaintiff, who claimed to have inducted the defendant as a tenant in the suit premises, himself appeared in the suit as plaintiffs witness and deposed that the defendant was a tenant inducted by him in the suit premises. Hence the learned Court below rightly arrived at the finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 11. It is also apparent from the record of the case that plaintiff is a Pardanashin lady and hence she could not depose in the suit but her husband, who was also her power of attorney holder, deposed on her behalf as a plaintiff witness and furthermore even the son of the plaintiff for whose necessity the suit was filed deposed in the suit supporting the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, in my view, there was no legal infirmity in the impugned order as the claim of the plaintiff had to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced on her behalf, both oral and documentary and not on the evidence of the defendant. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could neither point out which evidence of the defendant was produced but not considered by the Court below nor could he state the relevancy of any such evidence to the issues involved. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the finding of the learned Court below regarding personal necessity of the plaintiff also appears to be legal and proper as it was sufficiently proved by the plaintiff that her son was sitting idle for want of space although he had experience to do Cement and Hardware business which he wanted to start in the suit premises and these facts could not be disproved by the defendant by any material whatsoever. 13. Furthermore, with respect to the question of partial eviction the learned Court below in paragraph-11 of the impugned judgment had specifically found and held that for starting the business of Cement and Hardware the suit premises over 5 Dhurs of land was sufficient and any lessor space could not have sufficed the requirement of the plaintiff. So far the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it has been specifically held in that decision itself that the question of partial eviction has to be considered as per the requirements of the plaintiff, which may be different in different cases. Hence here in the facts and circumstances of the instant case any partial eviction from the suit premises would not fulfil the requirement of the plaintiff which is for starting business of Cement and Hardware, which clearly requires lot of space such as the suit premises, which would just suffice the plaintiffs requirement. It is also apparent from the impugned order that in the said circumstances the defendant himself did not press the issue of partial eviction nor objected to the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff before the trial Court, hence he cannot be legally allowed to raise the issue at revisional stage. 14. It is also apparent from the impugned order that in the said circumstances the defendant himself did not press the issue of partial eviction nor objected to the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff before the trial Court, hence he cannot be legally allowed to raise the issue at revisional stage. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the materials on record I do not find any illegality or defect in the impugned judgment and decree, which are thus affirmed and this Civil Revision is dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of this case there would be no order as to cost.