ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shanti Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite Party. 2. This civil revision application under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2008 passed by learned Munsif-Nalanda at Biharsharif in Eviction Case No. 14 of 2003 whereby the learned trial Court has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party and has directed the defendant-petitioner to handover the vacant position of the same to the plaintiff. 3. The suit property in question is a shop admeasuring 13’9”x 8’4” situated in Holding No. 162, Ward No. 7/13 in Mohalla-Sherpur, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda. 4. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party seeking eviction of the defendant-petitioner inter alia on grounds of personal necessity, as the plaintiff bonafidely required the suit premises for settlement of her son Satendra Kumar who was sitting unemployed since last 10 to 11 years and the shop was required for settlement of the said son for running a business of general store. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner inter alia on grounds that the requirement was not bonafide and that the plaintiff had other alternative for the purpose. The suit having been decreed in favour of the plaintiff hence, the present application. 5. This application was admitted by order dated 24.10.2008 and while admitting this application, the operation of the judgment and decree was stayed. However, the petitioner was directed to keep on making payment of the rent together with arrears, if any. 6. It is not in dispute that the defendant-petitioner has continued making payment of the rent. The issues relevant for consideration of the matter in contest are Issue No. 3 relatable personal necessity, Issue No.4 relatable to entitlement of the plaintiff to the decree in question and Issue No.5 relatable to partial eviction. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 8. The defendant-petitioner is a tenant in the shop in question since more than 15 years of the institution of the suit, meaning thereby he has continued in tenancy since last more than 25 years. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 8. The defendant-petitioner is a tenant in the shop in question since more than 15 years of the institution of the suit, meaning thereby he has continued in tenancy since last more than 25 years. The shop in question was purchased by the plaintiff-opposite party in the year 2003 and whereafter she gave notice to the defendant-petitioner to vacate the same which was followed by a legal notice but since the petitioner did not accede to the request made by the plaintiff, hence the suit in question was filed. 9. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not a matter in contest. 10. The discussion on the issue of personal necessity and entitlement of the plaintiff-opposite party to obtain a decree has been discussed at paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment. The plaintiff has led her evidence in support of her plea of personal necessity for the purpose of settlement of her son and which has been taken note of by the Court below. The husband of the plaintiff was examined as plaintiff witness No.6 and who has deposed as regarding the necessity of the suit shop for settlement of his son. The other witnesses examined by the plaintiff have also given supportive evidence on this aspect. Although the plea has been contested by the defendant-petitioner by leading evidence but they have not been able to adduce any such evidence which would render the plea of personal necessity taken by the plaintiff to be a pretext of evicting the defendant. On the contrary, the defendant himself during the course of cross examination has stated that he has no knowledge whether the son of the plaintiff is settled or whether he runs any other shop. It has also come during the course of cross examination of the defendant that there is no other shop vacant and available for settlement of the son of the plaintiff. The other witnesses led by the defendant do not even support the contest led by the defendant. The shop has been purchased by the plaintiff is not in dispute and the son of the plaintiff, Satendra Kumar is not settled, again could not be controverted by evidence led by the defendant. The other witnesses led by the defendant do not even support the contest led by the defendant. The shop has been purchased by the plaintiff is not in dispute and the son of the plaintiff, Satendra Kumar is not settled, again could not be controverted by evidence led by the defendant. That the plaintiff has no other options for settlement of her son again could not be controverted by the defendant by leading any evidence. 11. The said circumstance by itself is sufficient enough to support the plea of personal necessity of the plaintiff. Once the plea of personal necessity of the plaintiff is found to be bonafide, the consequence have to follow. The issue of partial eviction again has been discussed as Issue No.5 by the learned Court below and the measurement of the shop by itself is supportive of the fact that the needs of the plaintiff in the suit shop in order to settle her son into running a grocery shop cannot be settled in any area lesser than the suit shop. 12. In the circumstances aforementioned, there could not have been any other conclusion than that drawn by the learned Court below. The judgment and order has been passed after observing the procedure prescribed in the Act and the findings of the Court below are reasoned and supportive by material evidence. 13. For the reasons aforementioned, no occasion arises warranting interference with the judgment and order impugned. This civil revision application is accordingly dismissed. 14. Let the Lower Court Records be returned to the Court concerned in a sealed cover, forthwith.