IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.210 of 2004 1. Manorama Devi w/o late Vijay Sharma 2. Neeraj Kumar s/o late Vijay Sharma 3. Dhiraj Kumar s/o late Vijay Sharma 4. Niranjan Kumar s/o late Vijay Sharma, r/o at present Dully Sharma Garage, Refugy Colony, P.S. & District – Munger …….. Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. Ram Prakash Sinha s/o late Bidyanand Prasad, r/o Mohalla – Mogal Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, District – Munger …………. Opposite Party/Plaintiff ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party: None. ----- 18 23/6/2010 This application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building Control Act arises from the judgment and order dated 31st July, 2003 passed by the Court of Munsif, Munger, in Eviction Suit no.63 of 1984. The petitioner is the tenant in the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. The suit premises was purchased by the plaintiff ( Opposite Party herein) through a registered sale deed on 17th January, 1984. Since the plaintiff purchased the suit premises, he gave notice of atonement to the petitioner. The plaintiff instituted the Eviction Suit no.63 of 1984, for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that he required the suit premises for personal use to open and 2 run a private school in the suit premises. The notice of eviction (Ex.6) given by the plaintiff was received by the defendant. In reply to the notice, he admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but denied that the plaintiff had necessity for the premises for his personal use. The eviction suit was contested by the defendant. In the suit, he denied the title of the plaintiff and also claimed title by adverse possession. The learned Munsif by the impugned judgment and order recorded findings in favour of the plaintiff. He held that the landlord and the tenant relationship was established and the plaintiff had proved his bonafide requirement of the suit premises for his personal use. The claim of title by adverse possession made by the defendant was rejected. In view of the said findings, the learned Munsif passed the decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred the present Revision Application. The learned Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has assailed the judgment of the learned Munsif. He has submitted 3 that the decree for eviction passed by the learned Munsif is unsustainable and is contrary to the findings recorded. He has submitted that the learned Munsif having held that the partial decree for eviction was not possible has erred in passing the decree for eviction. I am unable to agree with Mr. Singh. In view of the above referred findings recorded in favour of the plaintiff, the necessary consequence would be the decree for eviction. The learned Munsif further examined whether the partial decree for eviction would serve the purpose and having found that the partial decree would not serve the purpose, the decree for eviction has been passed. The learned Advocate Mr. Singh has not been able to dislodge the findings recorded in favour of the plaintiff. For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Application is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31st July, 2003 passed by the learned Munsif, Munger in Eviction Suit no.63 of 1984 is confirmed. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit, CJ.)