The aggrieved landlords are in appeal by special leave.
It would suffice to briefly sum up and numberice the facts, as alleged and found proved by the trial Court.
They are all sons and daughter of Ram Chandra Sao.
in 1984, plaintiff No.2 passed B.A. Hons.
in 1994 and plaintiff No.3 passed matriculation in 1988.
The suit premises companysist of two shops companybined together which were let out to the respondent tenants by one Dr. Bhuvnesh Kumar, the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs.
Out of the four plaintiff appellants, three are brothers and fourth is the sister.
Out of his three sons, plaintiff No.1 passed B.Sc.
Ram Chandra Sao has been running a business of dealing in onions and potatoes.
The plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises through registered deed of sale for satisfying the requirement of Akhilesh Kumar, plaintiff No.1, who wants to start his own retail business of clothes with capital made available by the financial assistance from the father.
J U D G M E N T C. Lahoti, J. A decree for eviction upholding availability of ground under clause c of sub Section 1 of Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent Eviction Control Act, 1982 hereinafter the Act, for short was passed in favour of the appellant landlords and against the tenant respondents by learned Munsif, Biharsharif.
A revision preferred under Section 14 8 of the Act has been allowed by the High Court and decree of trial companyrt set aside.
