JUDGMENT : Heard the parties finally. 2. This Civil Revision Application under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings ( Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2009, passed by learned Munsif, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West in Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2006 decreeing the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-opposite parties for eviction of the defendant-petitioner on the ground of personal requirement. 3. Mr. Sinha, submitted that the plaintiffs could not prove their case of bona fide personal requirement, as they were residing at Balasore where, Anand Sharma, for whom the suit premises was allegedly required, was engaged in business. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Dey supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that it was not necessary for Anand Sharma, to sit idle at Chaibasa, for proving the case of his requirement. 5. The plaintiff’s case in short is that the suit premises is situated on Khasmahal lease land, for which a renewal application was pending. On the basis of family arrangement, the suit properties were divided into two parts. The western portion of the holding fell in the share of Bishwanath Sharma ( husband of opposite party no. 1). Petitioner was inducted as tenant by the opposite parties on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-per month. Petitioner used to pay rent. Opposite parties required the suit premises for the personal use and occupation of Anand Sharma, who was married in the month of February, 2006 and who was facing difficulty in establishing himself independently due to lack of education as he was educated only up to matriculation. Therefore in order to settle Anand Sharma, plaintiffs required the suit premises, which was also most suitable place for the purpose. 6. The defendant’s case in short is that the Khasmahal lease has not been renewed in favour of the plaintiffs therefore they may not remain owner of the suit premises. The plaintiffs are residing at Balasore ( Orissa) and they do not require the suit premises for Anand Sharma. He was engaged in business. He was assisting his uncles in the business at Balasore. The plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit premises to the defendant but they stuck deal with other person. The plaintiffs have got other suitable and vacant accommodation to fulfill their need. 7. The trial court framed several issues. The parties led oral and documentary evidences. He was engaged in business. He was assisting his uncles in the business at Balasore. The plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit premises to the defendant but they stuck deal with other person. The plaintiffs have got other suitable and vacant accommodation to fulfill their need. 7. The trial court framed several issues. The parties led oral and documentary evidences. Regarding issue no. V, it was rightly held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was found that defendant paid rent to the plaintiffs and he cannot challenge their title; and that even during the pendency of the application for renewal of Khas Mahal lease, they are landlords of the defendant; and that in fact there was categorical admission made by the defendant and his father that the plaintiffs are their landlords and their exist relationship of landlord and tenant between them. 8. With regard to issue no. VII-whether the suit premises was required by the plaintiffs for their personal and bonafide need, after considering the respective cases of the parties and the evidences on record, the learned court below rightly held that though Anand Sharma was residing at Balasore, where he used to assist his uncles in the business, but he required the suit premises for establishing himself independently. It was inter alia held as follows:- “ In the above backdrop, in view of the dictum of Hon’ble Court, on scrutiny of evidence adduced and discussion made above, it can be said that Anand Sharma was not required to sit idle to claim personal necessity or reach the level of starvation to get the possession. It is apparent that plaintiffs as well as Paras Sharma and Anand Sharma are residing at Balasore at the same time as I have already hold that defendant has failed to prove other element like talk of sale with Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Manoj Kumar Agrawal. The defendant has also failed to prove that plaintiff has got some other alternative accommodation. Plaintiffs along with Anand Sharma are residing at Balasore this does not mean that Anand Sharma is living happily or he cannot start his own business at Chaibasa. It appears that it is not mere a desire rather a need of Anand Sharma which has arisen after his marriage. Plaintiffs along with Anand Sharma are residing at Balasore this does not mean that Anand Sharma is living happily or he cannot start his own business at Chaibasa. It appears that it is not mere a desire rather a need of Anand Sharma which has arisen after his marriage. Only for that he had worked at Chaibasa thereafter has gone to Raipur and now is working at Balasore i.e. Assisting in business of uncle therefore, I find and hold that plaintiffs have got valid personal and bona fide requirement of suit premises for settlement of his son Anand Kumar Sharma. Thus this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff. 9. On the question of partial eviction, the trial court rightly found that the frontage of the shop room being 8’-7” the partial eviction will not satisfy the need of the plaintiffs, or the defendant. 10. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. The defendant cannot deny or dispute the title of the plaintiff. It has come in evidence that Anand Sharma is assisting his uncles in their business at Balasore, but the plaintiffs want to establish him independently, after his marriage. The defendant could not prove that the said ground was false. It was not necessary for Anand Sharma, to sit idle at Chaibasa, for claiming and proving his requirement. 11. After hearing the parties, perusing the records, and considering the entire matter in detail, in my opinion, the plaintiffs-opposite parties proved their case of bona fide personal necessity and accordingly they are held entitled to decree of eviction. I do not find any merit in this civil revision application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs.