IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.33 of 2008 Jauhar Barmbaki @ Pappu son of Mohammadin Barambaki, resident of Mohalla-Ganj No.2, P.O and P.S.Bettiah town, District=West Champran. Versus Pawan Kumar, son of late Bishwanath Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Lal Bazar, P.O.and P.S.Bettiah town, District-West Champaran. ----------- 4. 12.11.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this application for review of this court’s order dated 11th December, 2007 whereby C.R. No.861 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner-tenant was considered and this court held that there is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order whereby the plea of personal necessity by the plaintiff-opposite party has been accepted. However, considering the plea of hardship this court granted six month’s time to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises. After one month present review petition has been filed. It has been submitted that Kerayanama dated 1.9.1990 does not entitle the plaintiff to claim eviction on the ground of expiry of terms of tenancy. This point has no substance because grant of fixed term of tenancy has not been accepted by the court below and eviction has been allowed only on the plea of personal necessity. Next it has been contended that shop is 12’x23’ in dimension with Pucca road on the north width of 12’. It has been submitted that the court below should have considered and allowed partial eviction and should have permitted the petitioner-tenant to continue in part of the premises. Although partial eviction was not an issue but the court below has considered that plaintiff has succeeded in proving personal - 2 - necessity of having business premises for two sons of the plaintiff, who are now major and unoccupied. Considering the dimension of the shop and the necessity of providing business premises for two sons of the plaintiff, this court finds that plea for partial eviction from the suit premises is neither practicable nor possible. Considering all the facts and circumstance this court finds no good ground to review the earlier order. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. Md.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)