IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.96 of 2009 MD. ARSHAD @ CHHOTU @ MD. ARSHAD ALAM, S/o Wasi Alam, C/o New Azad Press, Mohalla – Sabzibagh, P.S. – Pirbahore, Distt. – Patna ..…………...Defendant / Petitioner Versus MOST. SHAHNAZ BANO, wife of late Md. Yusuf, resident of Mohalla – Shahganj, P.S. – Sultanganj, Distt. – Patna……. …………………………………….Plaintiff / Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Naresh Kumar Malhotra and Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha No. 2, Advocates. For the opposite party:- Mr. Sadat Ali Khan, Advocate. ----------- 10. 06.03.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole opposite party. This Civil Revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2008, passed by the Munsif 1st, Patna, in Eviction Suit No. 04/2008 whereby the suit has been decreed holding that the suit premises are bona fide required for personal necessity of the plaintiff and his family, and the defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof within the time specified. At the outset, learned counsel for the 2 petitioner submitted that neither any issue had been framed with regard to the question of partial eviction nor had any finding been recorded by the trial court in this regard. Therefore, the judgment is vitiated on this ground itself as there is a mandatory requirement under the proviso to Section 11 (1) (c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control, Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) for deciding the issue of partial eviction. The aforesaid provision u/S 11 (1) (c) of the Act is as under:- “Sec. 11. Eviction of tenants.- (1)- x x x x x (c) where the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord: Provided that where the Court thinks that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building and allowing the tenant to continue occupation of the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the Court shall pass a decree accordingly, and fix proportionately fair rent for the portion in occupation of the tenant, which portion shall hence forth constitute the building within the meaning of clause (b) of section 2 and the rent so fixed shall be deemed to be the fair rent fixed under section 5; Explanation I.- x x x x x x” Learned counsel for the opposite party has 3 also appeared in this case and has filed counter affidavit to this Civil Revision application. However, on the point of question of personal eviction, both parties have filed separate affidavits and both of them agree that recording of finding upon the question of personal necessity was mandatory for deciding a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement on personal necessity. Opposite party in his affidavit to this effect and has stated that he does not have any objection if the matter is remanded back for deciding this issue by the trial court within a time frame. In view of the aforesaid, this matter is remanded back to the trial court concerned with a direction to frame issue on the question of partial eviction and thereafter proceed in accordance with law and decide the aforesaid issue, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion upon any question or issue other than the question of partial eviction in this case 4 concerning the impugned judgment. With the aforesaid direction and observation, this Civil Revision stands disposed of. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )