IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1453 of 2007 BHAGWAN SINGH Versus SAMSUDDIN AHMAD ----------- 5 3.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and opposite parties. This Court had issued a notice on a limited premise as is recorded in the order of this Court dated 26.9.2007. Today when the Counsel for the opposite party has appeared, they have conveyed to this Court that they have no objection in leaving one shop for the petitioner. In fact, to that extent, they have also relied on the last two paragraphs of the judgment. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contends that true it is that one shop has now been left by way of partial eviction but then he would like to retain the shop facing road. This however is not agreed by the Counsel for the opposite party who says that there are two brothers and they would like to have the shop in tandem. According to the provision of the B.B.C. Act as also the settled law, the option of getting the premises always lies with the landlord and in that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that he will retain the premises especially when he was in possession of three shops out of which the Court below has found him entitled to retain one shop. Thus, the shop that will be left by the 2 opposite party, landlord, will have to be retained by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations/directions, this civil revision application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)