Order Heard respective counsel on behalf of the defendant/tenant-petitioner and also on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord/opposite party. 2. The instant revision is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10th February, 2004 passed by the Munsif, Garhwa, in Eviction Suit No. 58 of 1988 (Mani Lal Verma vs. Brahma Nand Singh). 3. The eviction suit was preferred on the ground enumerated in Section 11 (1)(c) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The landlord is a practicing Advocate at Garhwa, but for the reasons that accommodation in question is in occupation of the tenant he has to come to and fro from Garhwa to Daltonganj everyday where he is residing at present. 4. The tenant initially claimed that the accommodation in question belonged to his father-in-law and he was residing in the said accommodation since very long time by permission of his father-in-law and he is a 'Gharjamai. 5. The Court below framed issue no.3 on the question that whether there is existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. The oral evidence as well as documentary evidence was led by both the parties. The claim of the tenant-petitioner was examined thoroughly by the Court below and issue no. 3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The Court below after thoroughly scrutinizing the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence i.e. payment of rent of Rs. 400/- as earnest money' and Rs. 120/- per month as rent arrived at a conclusion that there exists relationship of land-• lord and tenant between the parties. Though the tenant has not paid rent regularly, but in spite of this, findings were recorded to the effect that the petitioner/defendant is a tenant of the disputed accommodation. Ext.2 is Kirayanama duly executed between the parties in respect of the disputed accommodation. The accommodation was let out on the terms and conditions enumerated in the deed of rent (Kirayanama) and, accordingly, the definite conclusion was recorded in favour of the landlord that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 6. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 relates to the question of bona fide need and whether the landlord requires the accommodation in good faith. 6. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 relates to the question of bona fide need and whether the landlord requires the accommodation in good faith. The tenanted accommodation is used for residential-purpose, which consists of 3 rooms, 1 small Puja room, 1 store, 1 kitchen room, 1 courtyard and 1 latrine: The conclusion arrived at by the Court below is that the plaintiff requires one room for his office, one drawing-cum-guest room, one bed room, one small Puja room, one kitchen, one store and latrine: It goes without saying that they are the basic requirement for the $mall family for a decent living. 7. The Court below has also taken into consideration the question of partial eviction of the accommodation as question no. 5 and unequivocally arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff required the entire accommodation for his personal residence and office and partial eviction of the accommodation cannot suffice to meet his need, since one room was required for office-cum-chamber purpose. 8. Learned counsel, while making submission on behalf of the tenant tried to apprise the Court on certain documents. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction though the power of the Revisional Court is not very narrow: but it cannot be extended to the scope of a First Appeal. I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Court below that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant as well as the fact that accommodation in question is required by the plaintiff-landlord and, therefore, the Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree directing the petitioner-tenant to handover vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord-tenant and it does not require any interference by this Court whatsoever. 9. Learned counsel made a request that since the defendant-petitioner is residing in the accommodation in question since very long time, he requires some reasonable time for searching out alternative accommodation to shift his residence. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party brought to my notice 'that the revision application has been filed as far back as in the year 2004 and the instant eviction suit is also pending since 1988, the landlord is suffering irreparable loss and, so, a shorter time may be allowed to the tenant to vacate the premises in question. 10. 10. After taking into consideration all aspects and facts and circumstances of the case, I think that a period of six months is sufficient for the tenant-petitioner for searching out an alternative accommodation. Accordingly, tenant-petitioner is allowed six months, time to vacate and handover vacant possession to the landlord. The accommodation in question shall be handed over to the landlord-opposite party by 30th September, 2011, failing which the landlord-opposite party shall be it liberty to get it vacated forcibly. 11. I have been informed that execution case is already pending before the Executing Court. It is directed that the proceedings in the execution case may be completed, but the writ to deliver the vacant possession by using force shall not be granted prior to 30th September, 2011. 12. With the aforesaid observation and limited liberty granted to the tenant petitioner the revision is dismissed and the order of the Court below stands confirmed. No order as to the costs.