A landlord is entitled to choose the premises for eviction which he feels would satisfy his reasonable requirement. He cannot be guided by the objection of his tenant otherwise.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated the 31st August, 1987, passed by Sari Md. Mustaquim, Munsif, 1st. Court, Saran, Chaapra, in Eviction Suit No. 46 of 1986, whereby and whereunder the said learned court granted a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party and as against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of existence of personal necessity.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The plaintiffs-opposite party admittedly is the owner of a shop-room being part of Holding No. 170 appertaining to Ward No. 2, Circle No. 14 situate in Mohalla Sahebganj in the town of Chapra. The said shop premises has been described in details in the Schedule appended to the plaint as also a copy of the plan annexed thereto. The petitioner in this Civil Revision application has also annexed a copy of the plan which was prepared for addition and alteration to the existing house and shop of opposite party No. 2. The plaintiffs in the plaint stated that their residential house is situate in the northern part of the holding No. 170 of Ward No. 2, Circle No. 14 situated in Mohalla Sahebganj and in the southern part thereof there are two big rooms attached to each other on the ground floor in which the defendant is a tenant. The plaintiffs have further asserted that contiguous west of the aforementioned shop there is a Gali leading to the residential house of the plaintiffs. In the first floor, there exists a room which is used by the plaintiffs as an office. It is admitted that the defendant-petitioner was a monthly tenant in respect of the premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 250.

4. According to the plaintiffs, the said shop premises was reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiffs as the plaintiff No. 2 intended to start his own cloth business. It is admitted that the defendant carries on his cloth business in the premises under the name and style of "Agrawal Cloth Stores". The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant had already taken a shop on lease in Durga Market, Gurhati, Sahebganj, in which he has been running his cloth business. The plaintiffs have further stated that they previously used to work as agents for the mill owners for which no shop room was required and they could carry on their job from their office which was situated in the first floor but, as they intended to start a cloth business also, the shop premises are most suitable for their purpose.

5. On the other hand, the defendant appeared in the aforementioned suit and obtained leave of the Court to contest the same. Thereafter, the defendant filed his written statement, inter alia, contending therein that the plaintiffs had got no personal requirement for the shop room in question. According to him the plaintiffs, work as agents of several cloth merchants, cloth producers, cloth Mills on commission basis and for that purpose no shop room is required by the plaintiffs. It has further been assorted that the plaintiffs have also constructed their own market by the side of the suit premises in the same holding in which they can start business of their choice, if really they wanted to start any business. The defendants have denied that they have got any shop room in Durga Market Purani Gurhati on lease. The defendants have farther stated that the plaintiff No. 1 is aged about 80 years and in view of his advance age ho cannot handle cloth business and, as such, the plaintiff No. 2 may confine his business activities with regard to agency business and there is absolutely no necessity to start a fresh business.

6. Before the learned court below both the parties adduced their respective evidences and the learned court below thereafter came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had been able to prove their cases of personal and bona fide requirement in respect of the suit premises and, as such, the suit was decreed.

7. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petiti