IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.2114 of 2007 Onkar Nath Dubey Versus Sanjeev Kumar Pandey & Ors ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: M/S Ganpati Trivedi,Dev Kumar Pandey & Madan Mohan For the respondents: M/S Jitendra Pandey, Pravin Kumar Pandey & Om Prakash Pandey 7 12-12-2011 Heard the learned counsels for the parties. This revision application has been filed under section 14(8) of the Bihar Building(Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, praying for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit all the plaintiffs died and were substituted by their heirs and legal representatives. However, it appears that the defendant-petitioner filed a petition raising the objection to the effect that the personal necessity no more survives after the death of the original plaintiffs and further that they have got no bonafide personal necessity of the suit premises. By order dated 6-7-2006 the court below has passed an order framing a separate issue in this regard to the effect as to whether the substituted heirs have the legal right to pursue and contest in the suit, but from the impugned order it does not appear that the said newly framed issue has at all been taken into consideration by the court below. This becomes more apparent when the newly framed issue does not find place in paragraph no.5 of the impugned order where all the issues have been mentioned. Obviously, the defendant-petitioner has not been heard 2 on that issue and the impugned order has been passed without adjudicating the said issue. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the court below has also not given any finding with regard to the partial eviction as mandatorily required under proviso to section 11(c) of the B.B.C.Act. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that Issue no (vi) is wide enough to encompass the dispute and the contention as has been sought to be raised by the newly framed issue. It has been urged that there was no need to give a separate finding on the newly framed issue, as the matter in question has been considered while adjudicating Issue no.(vi). After hearing the parties and considering their submissions, it appears that the court below has failed to adjudicate the new issue, which has been framed by order dated 6- 7-2006. The discussions made in the impugned order while adjudicating Issue no.(vi) also do not show that the court below was conscious of this Issue. Moreover, no finding has been recorded regarding the partial eviction in view of the proviso to section 11(c) of the B.B.C.Act. As such, the learned court below has committed error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order of eviction against the petitioner without adjudicating the aforesaid newly framed Issue as well as without giving a finding on the question of partial eviction. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the finding recorded by the court below with regard to Issue No.(vi) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to give a fresh finding on that Issue and also adjudicate the new Issue, which has been framed by order dated 6-7-2006. The learned court below is also directed to consider and give a finding on partial eviction in view of the proviso to section 11(c) of the B.B.C.Act. The finding recorded by the learned court below on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant is hereby affirmed. The learned court below is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt/production of this order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties have expressed their agreement to cooperate with the hearing of the suit and lead any fresh evidence expeditiously in order to complete the hearing and disposal of the suit within the aforesaid period. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed with the directions and observations made above. roy ( V. Nath, J.)