1. How far the question "reasonably and good faith" required, as occurring in Sec. 11(c) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, is justiciable in a Court of Law, falls for decision in this second appeal, which is at the instance of plaintiff-landlords who have failed in the Courts below to obtain eviction of their tenant on this ground.

2. The case of the plaintiff-landlord is that in order to start their own business, they acquired the disputed premise on 3-7-1973 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-, in which building, the respondent is holding a shop from before, as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60.00 only. The plaintiffs further case is that they have no independent business of their own, and they have no control over the affairs of the Hindu undivided family business, i.e., M/s. Mahadeo Bastralya, belonging to several members of their family. The disputed shop is near the railway station and according to then most suitable to fulfill their need and, therefore, they paid a higher price in its acquisition. The plaintiffs dont possess any vacant premise to start the proposed independent business. Plaintiffs thus bona fide and in good faith require the disputed premise.

3. On the other hand, the respondents case is that since the plaintiffs have their own joint family business, and they have not separated from the said business, the plaintiff cant be said to require the premise bona fide and in good faith. Respondents further case is that they are holding shop since 1943 in the disputed premise, which is their only source of livelihood.

4. The Courts below found that the plaintiffs live with their father and two other brothers, and also participate in the family business. Plaintiffs have, therefore, interest in the profits of the said business. The Courts below further found that plaintiffs father being half blind and the other brother being partially disabled, the management of the family business cant be exclusively in their hand. Plaintiffs version, that the disputed shop was purchased by their own fund, was not accepted. On the contrary it was held that the fund was provided by their father. On the basis of the aforesaid finding it was held that the plaintiffs do not require premise bona fide and in good faith.

5. Mr. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended, that the appellants being motivated to start a new business of their own, acquired the disputed premise at a high price. As to who provided the fund for it, whether they have share in the family business whether they also participate in the management of the said family business are altogether irrelevant considerations, more particularly when the family business is owned by 4 brothers, father, mother and aunt. According to learned counsel the Courts below adopted a wrong legal approach and thus arrived at wrong legal finding even if the facts found are sacrosanct. The plaintiffs are in need of the property, which cannot be by any standard said to be whimsical and capricious desire. It is not the requirement of law, according to the learned counsel, that the plaintiffs have to be unemployed and shelterless to establish bona fide need. The very fact that they have no other vacant premise suitable to start a business of their own is enough to obtain eviction on the ground of personal necessity.

6. Mr. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondents, strenuously urged that this Court should refrain from interfering in second appeal, the finding recorded by the Courts below on the question of personal necessity. He further contended that the law has to be interpreted in the background of social and economic condition. In the instant case appellants have some business to sustain them but the respondents have none except the present one to provide them livelihood. Courts should not shut its eyes to the spirit and intendment of Rent Restriction Act which was enacted to fetter the unfettered right of re-entry.

7. I will f