-HITLIST-Dwarika Lal v. Kalindi Devi (SC) -RECORD-BS227125 -CITATION-2009(16) S.C.C. 342(St.Ishwinder) (HN Shailly/Ratan) zzzz5 -COURT-<ß>SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<þ> -JUDGE-Before:- V.N. Khare and Ashok Bhan, JJ.<þ> -NO- Civil Appeal No. 917 of 2002 with No. 918 of 2002. D/d. -DECISIONDATE-01.02.2002.<þ> -EXTRATEXT- -PETITIONER- Dwarika Lal & Anr. - Appellants<þ> Versus<þ> -RESPONDENT- Kalindi Devi - Respondent<þ> -ADVOCATE- For the Appellant in SLP 3430 & SLP 12827 :- Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Ms. N. Mukherjee, Advocates.<þ> For the Respondent in SLP 3430 & SLP 12827 :- SB Sanyal, Sr. Advocate, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocates.<þ> -HEADNOTE-<ß>Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, Section BTZKARA8ETZK11(1)(c) (proviso) - Eviction suit - <ï>bonafide Need - Setting up of jewellery business - Trial Court decreed eviction suit on ground that need of landlord <ï>bonafide - Trial Court however did not consider the question of partial ejectment of tenant - High Court in revision considered that question - Order of High Court not sustainable - Held, question of partial ejectment has to be considered by trial Court itself and not by revisional court - Matter remitted back to trial Court to consider said question.<þ> [Paras 4 and 5]<þ> -ORDER- ORDER<þ> <ß>V.N. Khare, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.<þ> 2. Leave granted.<þ> 3. The appellants in C.A. No. 917 of 2002 @ SLP(C)No. 3430/2001 are the landlords of the premises in disputes whereas the appellant in C.A. No. 918 of 2002 @ SLP(C)No. 12827/2001 is the tenant of the premises. The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute which consists of Schedule A, B and C property for their <ï>bonafide need of setting up of a jewellery business. The tenant filed a written statement wherein he denied the need of the landlord. However, the trial Court decreed the Suit and directed for eviction of the tenant. The tenant, thereafter, preferred a revision petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. After hearing the matter, the High Court found that under proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 it was mandatory on the part of the trial Court to have considered the question of partial ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute after having found that the need of the landlord is bonafide. However, the High Court took up that exercise upon itself and in that process directed that Schedule A property will continue in the tenancy of the tenant and Schedule B and C property shall be released in favour of the landlord. Consequently, the revision petition was decided in the aforesaid terms. It is against the said judgment, both the landlord and tenant have filed separate appeals in this Court.<þ> 4. We are in total agreement with the argument raised on behalf of the landlord that the question so far as the partial ejectment is concerned, the same ought to have been considered by the trial Court itself and not by the revisional Court. In the present case, the trial court after having found the need of the landlord <ï>bonafide and genuine, it was further incumbent upon it to have considered the question as regards the partial ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute. In that view of the matter, both the appeals deserve to be allowed.<þ> 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the order and judgment under challenge is set aside. The matter is sent back to the trial court to consider the case under proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the Act.<þ> 6. The appeals are allowed.<þ> 7. There shall be no order as to costs.<þ> -RESULT- Appeals allowed.<þ>

<þ>