ORDER : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The instant civil revision under section 14(8) of the Jharkhand Building (Lase Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division-II), Giridih in Eviction Suit No.06 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff/opposite party has been decreed and the petitioner/defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises and to give vacant possession to the plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment, failing which, the plaintiff was at liberty to get the vacant possession of the premises through process of court. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that title eviction suit No.06 of 1999 was filed by plaintiffs/respondent stating inter alia that the plaintiffs are the owner of Holdling No.886, Ward No.VI(old), XV(new) of Giridih Municipality, Giridih situated at Pachamba, P.S.-Giridih(T), Dist.-Giridih being survey Plot No.1270 under Khata No.180 of Mouza Jaridih, Pachamba, P.S.- Giridih(T), Dist.-Giridih, old District-Hazaribag and they are living in portion of the holding with their family members and in another part, the defendant is living as tenant under the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are paying taxes in respect of the said holding and obtaining receipt from the municipality. It is further case of the plaintiffs that originally the lands of plot No.1270 under Khata No.180 was recorded in Khatiyan comprising house and sahan over area 11 decimal in possession of Seikh Karim Bux, S/o-Seikh Ahsan Mian of District-Chapra during last survey and settlement operation and he was in actual physical possession over the same. The said Seikh Karim Bux died leaving behind his only daughter, Bibi Rafikan, who inherited the suit property and came into physical possession over the same. Bibi Rafikan was a pardanashin lady so she appointed Abdul Razak, S/o-Late Nawab Ali as caretaker of the property to manage and look after the cultivation work and other work of property situated in Giridih and she used to visit Giridih from time to time to collect rent and usufructs from the tenants. It is further stated that Abdul Razak used to realize the house rent from the tenants on behalf of Bibi Rafikan and used to issue rent receipts to the tenants. After death of Abdul Razak, his son Md. It is further stated that Abdul Razak used to realize the house rent from the tenants on behalf of Bibi Rafikan and used to issue rent receipts to the tenants. After death of Abdul Razak, his son Md. Reyazuddin was also working as caretaker of Bibi Rafikan and exercising the power of collecting rent and usufructs on her behalf. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Bibi Rafikan executed a registered deed of gift (bakshisnama) dated 16.12.1961 with respect of the lands of mouza semri in favour of her daughter Noor Jannat and she again executed the bakshisnama on 20.01.1969 in favour of Bibi Noor Jannat and her husband Md. Atiullah in respect of properties of mouza Semri and Giridih district and put them in actual physical possession over the same. After death of Bibi Rafikan, her two daughters, Bibi Jaitun and Bibi Noor Jannat inherited the property left by their mother. It is further stated that Bibi Jiatun and her husband, Abdul Samad died issueless and as such whatever right Bibi Jaitun had in the property of Karim Bux passed to Bibi Noor Jannat and her husband and they become absolute owners of entire property acquired by Sheikh Karim (Bux) by virtue of inheritance and gift. It is further stated that Md. Reyazuddin, son of Abdul Razak filed a Title Suit No.101 of 1985 against Bibi Noor Janat and Md. Khalil Khan in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giridih claiming the entire lands through oral gift by Karim Bux in favour of Abdul Razak on 21.03.1935 and challenged the sale deed executed by Bibi Noor Jannat in favour of Khalil Khan on 07.01.1985. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.07.1986. Accordingly, the very basis of the title through oral gift dated 21.03.1935 was disbelieved and the case of defendants regarding execution of bakshisnama dated 16.12.1961 and 20.01.1969 was found to be legal and valid. Title appeal No.67 of 1986 was also preferred challenging the judgment passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division in Title Suit No.67 of 1986, which was also dismissed on 30.06.1994 by the 2 nd Additional District Judge, Giridih. The second appeal No.69 of 1994(R) was also preferred before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna at Ranchi Bench, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 21.11.1996. Thereafter, L.P.A. No.45 of 1996 (R) was filed, which was also dismissed on 02.08.1996. The second appeal No.69 of 1994(R) was also preferred before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna at Ranchi Bench, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 21.11.1996. Thereafter, L.P.A. No.45 of 1996 (R) was filed, which was also dismissed on 02.08.1996. It is further pleaded that the defendant is a monthly tenant in part of holding No.886, Ward No.VI(old), XV(new) of Giridih Municipality, Giridih as mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint inducted by Bibi Rafikan on montly rent of Rs.15/-, which was being paid to her by caretaker, Md. Abdul Razak and Md. Reyazuddin. Since the month of March, 1997, the defendants refused to pay any rent and became defaulter rendering him liable for eviction from the suit premises. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for their own accommodation as the family members of the plaintiffs have increased and facing problem of accommodation. The requirement of plaintiffs cannot be satisfied through partial eviction of the defendants due to large number of family members. Hence, the plaintiffs requested to the defendants to vacate the suit premised and hand over the possession in the month of March, 1999 but on one plea or another, he was lingering and ultimately refused to vacate the suit premises, hence, this suit. 4. The case of the defendant is that he has appeared and filed a written statement mainly contesting the suit on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and the tenants between the parties. The defendant was never inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs rather his land lord is Md. Riyazuddin. Therefore, the plaintiffs should have to a title suit against Md. Riyazuddin paying ad-volurem court fee for declaration of their right, title and interest. The defendant is occupying four rooms along with kitchen and one bath room in the suit premises and paying rent to his landlord, Md. Reyazuddin. The plaintiffs were never owner of the suit premises and merely by virtue of municipal tax receipt issued in favour of the plaintiffs, no title can be passed. The entry in survey record is also denied as belonging to Karim Bux and thereafter to Bibi Rafikan. It is also stated that Md. Reyazuddin. The plaintiffs were never owner of the suit premises and merely by virtue of municipal tax receipt issued in favour of the plaintiffs, no title can be passed. The entry in survey record is also denied as belonging to Karim Bux and thereafter to Bibi Rafikan. It is also stated that Md. Reyazuddin and Abdul Razak were never the caretaker of the suit premises, therefore, the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant, who was not party to Title Suit No.101 of 1985 and also the suit property was not related to the subject matter of the present suit. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is fit to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were settled by the trial court for adjudication:- (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is there any cause of action for this suit? (iii) Whether there is any relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant as landlords and tenant (iv)Whether Abdul Razak and Md. Reyazuddin were Rakhwalikar/care-taker/agent of Bibi Rafikan? (v) Whether the defendant was tenant of Bibi Rafikan in the sit premises and thereafter tenant of the plaintiffs? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs require the sit premises reasonably and in good faith for their own occupation and accommodation of their family members? (vii) Whether plaintiff’s requirement of personal necessity would be completed by partial eviction of suit properties/suit premises? (viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for? (ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the other relief or reliefs? 6. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiffs have examined two witnesses i.e. P.W.1-Majhar Imam and P.W.2-Md. Atiullah and also placed reliance upon following documentary evidences:- (i) Ext.1- Certified copy of khatiyan of khata no.180, plot No.1270; (ii) Ext.2 & 2/1- Certified copy of judgment and decree of T.S. No.101/85 / 153/85; (iii) Ext.3 & 3/1-Certified copy of judgment and decree of T.A. No.67/86; (iv) Ext.4-Certified copy of order dated 21.11.1995 in S.A. No. 69/94(R) of Hon’ble High Court; (v) Ext.5- Certified copy of order dated 30.07.1996 in L.P.A. No.45/96(R) of Hon’ble High Court; (vi) Ext.6- Certified copy of order dated 18.02.1997 in M.J.C.639/96(R); (vii) Ext.7-Malgujari receipt No. JH/20A 106256 (viii) Ext.8- Municipal receipt No.18676; (ix) Ext.9-Certified copy of Registrar-II. 7. On the other hand, the defendant has not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of his claim. 7. On the other hand, the defendant has not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of his claim. 8. After considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and the arguments of both sides, learned trial court has decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit, which has been assailed in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial court is based on conjecture and surmises. Learned trial court has miserably failed to consider that the relationship of land lord and tenant was never established with respect to the petitioner with the original plaintiffs or opposite parties. The petitioner has never paid any rent to the plaintiffs at any point of time nor he was ever recognized as tenant of the plaintiffs. The petitioner’s case is that he was inducted by Abdul Razak as tenant in the year 1952 and since then he is in possession of the same and has been paying rent of the suit premises. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the plaintiffs have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence showing chronological accusation and inheritance of the suit property along with other property. The documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties and has not been rebutted by the petitioner, not only this, the petitioner has miserably failed to bring on record any documentary evidence showing the ownership and possession of his purported landlord, Abdul Razak and Md. Reyazuddin. He has also not adduced even a single rent receipt to show that he is paying rent to the said landlords. It is also not disputed that the alleged landlord of the plaintiffs have earlier instituted a suit in the year 1985 against the owner of the suit premises, which has been dismissed up to the stage of second appeal and special leave petition before the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, there is no reason to believe the plea advanced by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason to believe the plea advanced by the petitioner. As such, learned trial court after appreciating overall materials including oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs/opposite parties has rightly decreed the suit, which requires no interference in this revision and this revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 11. I have given anxious consideration to the rival arguments of the parties and also perused the impugned judgment. It appears that the learned trial court has very minutely considered the documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs/opposite parties clearly showing their right as landlord derived on the basis of genuine documents. The defendant/petitioner has miserable failed to prove his own plea justifying that his purported landlord, Abdul Razak and Md. Reyazuddin were rightful owner and landlords of the suit premises, who have lost their cases up to second appeal and special leave petition. Therefore, bald plea of the petitioner/defendant that he is tenant of Abdul Razak and Md. Reyazuddin without substantiating the same through cogent evidence has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial court. I don’t find any error of law in the impugned judgment to take a different view in this revision, which stands dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any passed in this case, stands vacated. 13. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent back to the trial court for information and needful.