A landlord must establish a bona-fide requirement for the premises in question in order to obtain an order of eviction under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The requirement must be reasonable and not merely a desire or wish.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. This revision application arises out of a judgment dated 19-12-1987 passed by Shri B. K. Singh, Munsif, 1st Court, Gaya in Eviction Suit no.8 of 1985 whereby and whereundcr the said learned court decreed the suit for eviction filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the aforementioned suit on the ground of his bona-fide requirement as contemplated under Section ll (l) (c) of the bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 in respect of a double storied building bearing holding No.16 (old) and 22 (new) at Mohalla gosain Bagh in Ward No.4/a, P. S. Kotwali, District-Gaya.

3. According to the plaintiff, he has four sons, namely, Ram Jee Prasad arya, Shyam Kumar, Mundrika Prasad and Ramesh Kumar. The plaintiff had *against the judgment and decree dated 19-H-1987 passed by Shri B. K. Singh, Munsil 1st, Gaya, stated in the plaint that so for as Mundrika Prasad his third son is concerned, he was sitting idle and as such he wanted to engage himself in some business and for that purpose he needs a shop premises in the ground floor of the suit holding.

4. The plaintiff further stated that some of his grand children have been studying io Gaya and the plaintiff has taken a premises on rent for the purpose of imparting education to his grand children.4-A. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted the ground floor so as to fulfil the said need of his grand children.

5. The learned court below in the impugned has found that the plaintiff wanied the entire premises i. e. both the ground and first floor for the purpose of carrying on business and residential puropses respectively.

6. The learned court below in his judgment has elaborately dealt with the need of the plaintiff so far as the same related to the first floor. It has also found that the plaintiff has taken a premises on rent in the town of Qaya and has been residing therein. In such a situation there cannot be any doubt that the plaintiff required the first floor of his house for his residential porpose.

7. As a matter of fact the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the judgment of the court below so far as the said need is required.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has confined this case with the other part of the judgment and submitted that the judgment of the learned court below in so far as the same related to the ground floor is vitiated in law.

9. According to the learned counsel in para 13 of the plaint the petitioner has merely stated that he wants to engage his third son, namely, Mundrika prasad and he would open a shop in the ground floor in suit holding but the plaintiff has not stated in the plaint the nature of business which the said Mundrika prasad intended to carry on nor had he stated that he had the requisite fund therefor. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there was absolutely no basis for the claim of the plaintiff, so far as the ground floor of the said premises is concerned.

10. The plaintiff during his examination in court categorically stated that he would not be able to start any business unless the suit house is vacated. He further admitted that he has not accumulated fund to invest in the business but sought to explain in the same breath that he would apply for loan from the bank for that purpose. In Damadilal V/s. Parashram reported in 1976 SC.2226 a bench of three judges of the Supreme Court held as follows:

"plaintiffs case was that they had cloth and grocery business at village nadan and that they desired to start a wholesale cloth and grocery business at Satna. The trial Courts finding was based inter-alia on the evidence that the plaintiffs had not adequate funds to start a new wholesale business. The lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court on the ground that there was no evidence that the plaintiff had up money to start a new business ; the lower appellate Co