JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This civil revision application has been preferred under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 by the defendant of Eviction Suit No.02 of 2010 which has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by judgment and decree dated 27.02.2015 holding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the plaintiff bonafidely and reasonably requires the Hut in possession of the appellant standing on portion of Plot Nos.734, 735 and 736 area 3 katha 19 dhur. 3. The case and claim of the plaintiff-opp.parties is/ was that the plaintiffs had purchased the aforesaid plot through registered sale deed and on the request of the defendant-petitioner had constructed a Hut on a portion of that plot and let out the same on a monthly rental of Rs.150/-. The plaintiffs admitted that both sides are agnates and cosharers that is why the suit premises was let out to the defendant. It is further asserted that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and the plaintiffs are in need of personal use of the suit premises bonafidely and reasonably, as the plaintiffs want to construct a market complex after demolition of the suit premises. 4. The defendants in their written statement contended that the suit as framed was not maintainable. In the guise of eviction suit, the plaintiffs want to get their title declared. The defendant stated that father of plaintiff No.1 were six brothers one was Ram Janam Sah, father of the plaintiff No.1 and another was Ramagya Sah, father of the defendant. Other brothers were Laxmi Sah, Ram Hankar Sah, Jageshwar Sah and Ramanand Sah. During jointness of the family, some properties were purchased in the name of father of the plaintiff and some properties were purchased by the grandfather. However, all the properties were in joint possession of the joint family. 5. While coming to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the learned trial court did not consider that there was no document of partition of the joint family property nor there was any document that the said oral partition was acted upon by mutation of name of the respective sharers in respect of their share allotted in the partition. It came on the record that the parties were dealing with the property by transferring the same to some other persons through sale. That cannot be conclusive evidence of partition of the joint family property. There was no material that a tenancy was created between the parties by a document, nor the conduct of the parties such as payment of rent and grant of receipts or in any other way established that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The plaintiff did not disclose that after making a multistoried complex he would provide a shop to the defendant in the capacity of tenant. Hence, the requirement cannot be said to be a bonafide and reasonable requirement. 6. After hearing the parties and considering the material on the record, in my view, an eviction suit under the provisions of B.B.C. Act was/is not maintainable. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. However, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to pursue legal recourse, if available for redressal of their grievance, according to law. No order as to cost.