IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1112 of 2008 Md. Nooruddin @ Nooruddin, son of Late Kamruddin, Proprietor of “Liberty Tailor” Neemchand Road, Jamuna Market, Kisahanganj, resident of Mohalla- Nayee Basti Karbala Road, P.S.-Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj. . . . . . Defendant - Petitioner. Versus Shri Rabindra Kumar Sinha, son of Late Jamuna Prasad Sinha, resident of Mahabir Marg, Kishanganj, P.S. and District- Kishanganj. . . . . Plaintiff - Opposite Party. For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Md. Rashid Alam, Advocate, For the Opp. Party : M/s R. K. Agrawal, Anupa Nand Jha, Advocates. ----------- 6/ 13.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This Civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner under the proviso to Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 challenging order of his eviction vide judgment dated 20.05.2008 by which the learned Munsif Sadar, Purnia decreed Eviction suit no. 08 of 1998 / 08 of 2005. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the sole defendant-petitioner from the suit premises, which is a shop room, on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff. It transpires that earlier the said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif Sadar, Purnia vide his judgment dated 06.01.2007. Against the aforesaid judgment the defendant-petitioner filed Civil revision no. 479 of 2007. The said Civil revision was partly allowed vide order dated 10.12.2007 and the matter was remitted to - 2 - the learned court below to re-hear the parties on the basis of materials on record and pass a fresh order at an early date preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The said order was passed by this court for considering the evidence of the defendant namely D.W.3, D.W.5 and D.W.6 as well as Exhibit B and C Series which were not at all considered by the learned trial court in its judgment dated 06.01.2007. 4. It transpires from the record of the case including the impugned order that the learned trial court while allowing the suit again vide judgment dated 20.05.2008 did not at all consider the deposition of D.W.3 and decided the question of personal necessity and partial eviction holding that the issue has already been decided by this court in favour of plaintiff in its earlier judgment and that finding has not been challenged by the defendant. It is quite apparent that the aforesaid judgment is violative of the specific direction of this court given in its order dated 10.12.2007 passed in Civil revision no. 479 of 2007 (Annexure-3), according to which D.W.3, D.W.5 and D.W.6 as well as Exhibit B and C Series had to be considered afresh by the learned trial court which had to re-hear the parties on the basis of the materials on record and to pass a fresh order expeditiously. 5. The aforesaid order of this court having not been complied, this court has no option but to set aside the judgment of the learned court below dated 20.05.2008 passed in Eviction Suit no. 08 of 1998 / 08 of 2005 remitting back the matter to the learned court below to consider the evidence of the parties already on record, - 3 - specifically D.W.3, D.W.5 and D.W.6 as well as Exhibit B and C Series and pass a fresh order recording its independent findings on the issue of personal necessity and partial eviction. The entire procedure must be completed within three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order in the court below. 6. With the aforesaid observation / direction this civil revision is allowed. 7. Let this order along with the Lower court records be sent to the learned court below by special messenger if the cost of special messenger is deposited by the learned counsel for the opposite party within two days. Uday/ (S. N. Hussain, J.)