ORDER
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. Heard the parties and perused lower court records. Title (Eviction) Suit No. 21 of 1999 was filed under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) for defendant’s eviction from the suit shop detailed in schedule at the foot of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity.
2. According to plaintiffs, their mother Annapurna Devi purchased the suit property from Gayatri Devi by registered sale deed dated 6.10.1972 (Ext. 3) and thereafter from January, 1980, defendant was inducted as tenant on monthly rental of Rs. 300/- and their mother died on 16.6.1994.
3. Plaintiffs 3 and 4 were said to be un-employed and the suit shop was required for them to start business.
4. Defendant denied relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted that he was inducted as tenant in the suit shop by Gayatri Devi aforesaid and till date he was paying rent to her. He had no knowledge regarding the sale deed (Ext. 3). Plaintiffs were permanent residents of Jamui and all of them were engaged in business. Besides cultivation, plaintiffs 3 and 4 were doing contract works. He challenged the plaintiffs’ ownership over the suit premises.
5. During pendency of the suit Gayatri Devi filed intervention petition, but her prayer to be added as party-defendant in the suit was rejected by the trial Court. She examined herself in the suit as DW 10 and claimed herself to be owner of the suit property. She denied to have transferred it to the plaintiffs’ mother Annapurna Devi in the year, 1972.
6. It appears that though the suit was filed under Section 14 of the Act, but the trial Court framed issue No. 3 to the effect whether plaintiffs were real owners of the suit premises.
7. Parties are closely related. Defendant’s mother Annapurna Devi and Rameshwar Sah, husband of Gayatri Devi were respectively full sister and brother of defendant’s father, Laxmi Sah.
8. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and the plaintiffs required the suit shop reasonably and in good faith for doing business by plaintiffs 3 and 4. It was also observed that plaintiffs’ requirement can be fulfilled only after entire suit shop is vacated.
9. Mr. Debi Prasad, Sr. counsel for petitioner submitted that trial Court in a suit for eviction under Section 14 of the Act has gone into and decided ownership and held that plaintiffs were real owner vide issue No. 3, which was not permissible. Further, besides evidence of plaintiff No. 3, who examined himself as PW 4 there was no evidence of any independent witness to corroborate that in fact plaintiffs had bona fide need of the suit shop and in absence of kirayanama and/or rent receipts relationship of landlord and tenant was also not established. On partial eviction trial Court recorded only one line finding that plaintiffs’ requirement would be fulfilled only if entire shop was vacated.
10. It is true question of title/ownership of the suit premises could not have been adjudicated upon or decided finally in a suit for eviction under Section 14 of the Act. Plaintiffs’ vendor Gayatri Devi had filed an intervention petition in the suit, which was rejected and in her absence trial Court recorded finding that plaintiffs were the real owner of the suit shop. Defendant did not claim title in himself; rather he was supporting Gayatri Devi’s case. He had no information whether Gayatri Devi had transferred it to plaintiffs’ mother Annapurna Devi in 1972 or not. Gayatri Devi was examined on behalf of defendant as DW 10 and she denied such transfer and claimed that she was receiving rent from defendant as owner of the suit shop.
11. Gayatri Devi has already filed title suit No. 103 of 2001 against plaintiff for declaration of title in respect of the suit shop, which is pending disposal.
12. Perusal of record reveals that trial Court in absence of Gayatri Devi framed and decided issue No. 3. However. I find that question of title in her absence was not gone into in detail and decided finally. It was considered incidentally and as such
finding on issued No. 3 shall not operate as res judicata in a suit for title between the plaintiff and Gayatri Devi.
13. I find that trial Court recorded finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between parties. No doubt, Gayatri Devi was examined as DW 10 and she denied transfer of suit shop to the plaintiff vide Exhibit 3, but unless the said transfer deed is not set aside, defendant cannot ignore plaintiffs’ interest therein. It is immaterial whether defendants attorned Annapurna Devi as landlady or not. It was rightly held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
14. Need of the shop for plaintiffs 3 and 4 unemployment, in my opinion, was reasonable and bonqfide and was rightly accepted by the trial Court. Nothing contrary to the evidence of PW 4 was brought on record by defendant to show that plaintiffs 3 and 4 were not unemployed and were actually doing contract works. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by trial Court that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and plaintiffs required the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for their own use and occupation.
15. So far as question of partial eviction is concerned, I find that PW 4 (Plaintiff No. 3) in his deposition stated that “ANSIK RUP SE KHALI HONE PAR INKA KAM K1S1 HALAT ME NAHI CHAL SAKTA KEYOKI CHOTA JAGAH HAI AUR DONO BHAI KO BYAWASAI KARNA HAI.” Defendant in his evidence as DW 8 also accepted that area of the suit shop was only 15′ x 12′. In such circumstance, I am of the view that the aforesaid space could not have been divided into two parts and unless entire premises was vacated, plaintiffs’ requirement could not be fulfilled. In this regard, Mr. Prasad placed reliance in Krishna Murari Prasad v. Mittar Singh, 1994 BBCJ 371 (SC), wherein it was held that even if premises comprised one room, enquiry has to be made and in failing to do so, court will be deemed to have over looked the statutory requirement of proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, it cannot be said that no enquiry was made in respect of partial eviction and, therefore, ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable herein.
16. There is no merit in this revision application. It is dismissed, but without costs.