Order : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.03.2013 (decree signed on 04.04.2013) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 34 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs / opposite parties under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 has been decreed and the defendant / petitioner has been directed to handover the vacant possession of the tenanted premises described in suit schedule of the Plaint to the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment, failing which, the plaintiffs will take legal suitable steps. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the original plaintiff Anil Kumar Sharma (since deceased) has instituted the above suit for eviction of the defendant from the tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide requirement for his own use and occupation. The original plaintiff died during pendency of the suit and his wife and daughters have been substituted as legal representatives of the deceased – landlord. The case as set up by the original plaintiff is that the plaintiff has purchased 3 kathas 8 chhatak lands in Plot No. 195, Khata No. 35 of Mouza – Bhuda, District – Dhanbad through registered sale deed no. 9452 dated 15.10.1987 and came into possession of the same and started construction work for his residence and constructed one asbestos thatched room and thereafter also constructed a bathroom and latrine attached to one pucca room. 4. It is alleged that the wife of the plaintiff is School Teacher at Bhuli, hence, the plaintiff wanted to live with his wife at Bhuli, therefore, on request of defendant, the plaintiff let out his tenanted premises, described in the schedule of the Plaint to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- as month-to-month tenant in the month of January, 2002. It is further alleged that since January, 2003, the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and instead of paying the arrears of rent adopted torturous methods by filing criminal cases against the plaintiff and his wife. Any how the defendant agreed to vacate the suit premises by 31.07.2007 through decision of Panchayat, but again didn’t comply the verdict of Panchayat. It is further alleged that since January, 2003, the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and instead of paying the arrears of rent adopted torturous methods by filing criminal cases against the plaintiff and his wife. Any how the defendant agreed to vacate the suit premises by 31.07.2007 through decision of Panchayat, but again didn’t comply the verdict of Panchayat. It is further alleged that the plaintiff is a practicing lawyer at Dhanbad Civil Court and due to several ailments, his physical condition is not so good to attend the court from Bhuli. Hence, he wants the tenanted premises in order to smoothly conducting his profession, Hence, he requires the tenanted premises for his own bonafide use and occupation and he has no other accommodation at Dhanbad to fulfill his requirement. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendant to give vacant possession on 02.05.2008. Therefore, the present suit was instituted on the ground of personal necessity reserving the right of realizing of rent through separate suit. 5. The defendant / petitioner appeared and filed his written statement and mainly contested the suit on the ground that half constructed house without well-furnished like finishing of plasters, windows fixing, door fixing and without electricity connection was let out to the defendant. Therefore, with consent of the plaintiff, the defendant on his own cost entered into material construction work to make it fit for residential purpose on the condition that the expenditure incurred in furnishing of the rented house shall be adjusted from the monthly rent. It is further alleged that on the basis of mutual understanding and on the request of the plaintiff, the monthly rent was fixed for Rs. 400/- per month with electricity. No rent receipt was ever issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of tenanted premises. It is further stated that electricity connection was not provided by plaintiff, inspite of several requests. The defendant has paid Rs. 11,000/- on 03.01.2005 and Rs. 14,200/- on 09.01.2005 to the plaintiff for the purpose of repairing the boundary wall of the tenanted premises in cash with cash receipt, which was assured by the plaintiff that the same will be adjusted at the rate of monthly rent of Rs. 250/- only and after adjustment of Rs. 250/-, the defendant has to pay Rs. 150/- per month. The defendant has also incurred expenses of Rs. 250/- only and after adjustment of Rs. 250/-, the defendant has to pay Rs. 150/- per month. The defendant has also incurred expenses of Rs. 26,000/- prior to 19.11.2006 to install motor, to get electric connection and other miscellaneous repairing expenses and also requested to make out the account of expenses with the plaintiff, which was flatly refused then defendant was compelled to file a Complaint Case No. 1839/2006 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff instead of making adjustment of accounts forcibly trespassed the house of the defendant and abused his wife then again complaint case was instituted which subsequently culminated into Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 375 of 2007. In repercussion to above cases, plaintiff’s wife Gitika Sharma also filed a false criminal case for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 34 of the I.P.C. against the defendant as Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 352 of 2008. The plaintiff has also disconnected the electricity of the suit premises, as such, the plaintiff has taken Rs. 51,200/-, out of which Rs. 25,200/- in cash receipt for repairing and construction of boundary wall and Rs. 26,000/- approximately for miscellaneous expenses for the repairing of the house premises without making any adjustment towards rent, therefore, there is no question of arrear of rent arises. Therefore, this suit is filed with ulterior method to dishonestly grab the amount paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and get his eviction illegally. Hence, the suit is fit to be dismissed on cost. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were settled by the learned trial court for adjudication, which are as under:- (I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action to sue the suit? (III) Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? (IV) Whether the plaintiffs are reasonably and in good faith required premises for their own occupation? (V) Whether the partial eviction may be substantially satisfy the reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs? (VI) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled the relief claimed in this suit? 7. The trial court after evaluating oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties has decided the core Issue Nos. III, IV & V in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant. (VI) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled the relief claimed in this suit? 7. The trial court after evaluating oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties has decided the core Issue Nos. III, IV & V in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant. It was held that the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted fact and there is no specific partial or rebuttal in the written statement that the plaintiff has no reasonable and good faith requirement of the tenanted premises and nor for the partial eviction. It was also observed that the defendant’s defence was struck off vide order dated 01.09.2012 due to non-compliance of order dated 21.05.2009 under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. Therefore, considering the overall documentary evidence unrebutted oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff, all issues decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the suit was accordingly decreed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment only on two grounds firstly, due to death of original plaintiff, cause of personal necessity does not survive against the substituted heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. Secondly, the verdict of partial eviction by the learned trial court is very vague and ambiguous. 9. Elucidating his contentions on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Sheshambal (through LRs) v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 470 , wherein it was held at Paragraph-17 that “While it is true that the right to relief must be judged by reference to the date of suit or the legal proceedings were instituted, it is equally true that if subsequent to the filing of the suit, certain developments take place that have a bearing on the right to relief claimed by a party, such subsequent events cannot be shut out from consideration. What the Court in such a situation is expected to do is to examine the impact of the said subsequent development on the right to relief claimed by a party and, if necessary, mould the relief suitably so that the same is tailored to the situation that obtains on the date the relief is actually granted.” It was further observed at paragraph-29 that “In the light of what we have stated above, we have no hesitation in holding that on the death of the petitioners in the original eviction petition their right to seek eviction on the ground of personal requirement for the demised premises became extinct and no order could on the basis of any such requirement be passed at this point of time.” 10. It is further argued that the learned trial court has miserably failed to consider the above legal preposition propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, who are substituted in place of original plaintiff and the wife of the original plaintiff is in job as School Teacher and never the requirement of suit premises for her own personal use and occupation. The learned trial court has also not considered the issue of partial eviction, which is a matter of law, is to be considered by the court in all the cases for eviction from residential accommodation. No such pleading is required at the instance of defendant. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and this revision is fit to be allowed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that there is no legal substance in both grounds of assailing the impugned judgment and decree taken by the petitioner, the opposite party no. 1 is wife of the original plaintiff and at the time of death of her husband, she had one major daughter and one minor daughter. The cause of action is to be survive in her favour even on the ground of personal and bonafide need of the suit premises for the own use and occupation. 1 is wife of the original plaintiff and at the time of death of her husband, she had one major daughter and one minor daughter. The cause of action is to be survive in her favour even on the ground of personal and bonafide need of the suit premises for the own use and occupation. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Sheshambal (through LRs) (Supra) does not apply in this case in the factual background of the case because in that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court based its decision on the vital aspect of the case that the deceased had only five daughters, who all were married and settled in their life, but in the instant case, the opposite party no. 1, after her retirement is in need of the tenanted residential accommodation along with her children. The petitioner never raised any objection about the personal need or any claim for partial eviction before the concerned trial court, therefore, such absurd plea even after lapse of considerable period of time hold no much water to be entertained. The plaintiffs / opposite parties have not enjoyed the fruits of decree and sustained hardship due to stay order passed in this case. Her hardship is greater than the hardship faced by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of petitioner. There is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and decree in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. It appears that the learned trial court has examined the evidence of respective parties very meticulously. However, the defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement, but his defence was struck off. In the written statement, the defendant / petitioner has taken no specific plea rebutting the contents of the plaint as regards bonafide personal requirement of the tenanted premises. The area of the tenanted premises is situated on so meagre area as to consider the matter of partial eviction, nugatory and can’t fulfill the requirement of plaintiff. It appears that the impugned judgement and decree suffer from no jurisdictional error or any kind of material irregularity. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 13. It appears that the impugned judgement and decree suffer from no jurisdictional error or any kind of material irregularity. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 13. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 14. The interim order passed in this case is also vacated. 15. Pending I.A, if any stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.