Satyabrata Sinha, J.

1. This Civil revision application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-8-1990 passed by Shri Manoranjan Prasad Srivastava, Munsif, Jamshedpur, in Eviction Suit No. 353 of 1987, whereby and where under the said learned court passed a decree for eviction against the petitioner in Eviction Suit No. 353 of 1987 purported to be on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff-opposite party.

2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows: The suit property previously belonged to one laxmi Narayan Agarwal. His son Damodar Prasad Chetani by registered deed of sale dated 19-2-1982 transferred the entire house premises comprised within Holding No. 1/104 including the tenanted suit premises to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, his father was running a stationary shop under the name and style of "Ashok Fancy Stores" in one of the shops within the said holding in which the plaintiff was assisting his father. It was stated that the suit premises was required for expansion of the said "Ashok Fancy Stores" as also in order to enable the plaintiff and his two brothers Arun Kumar and Pawan Kumar to start business.

3. The case of the defendant-petitioner, on the other hand, was that Laxmi Narayan Agarwal died leaving behind two sons, besides two daughters and, thus, Damodar Prasad Chetani was incompetent to sell the entire suit holding to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that Raghunath Thakur, the husband of the petitioner was inducted as a tenant, who died leaving behind the petitioner and two sons petitioners No. 2 and 3 and two daughters who have not been impeded as parties to the suit and on the ground the suit liable to be dismissed. It was further contended that the tenanted premises consists of only one room measuring 81/2 x 9; it was further stated that the plaintiff is in occupation of various other buildings.

4. Both the parties adduced their evidence and as indicated hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned judgment the learned trial court held that the plaintiff had been able to prove his bona fide requirement in respect of the suit premises.

5. It appears that before the trial court a Pleader Commissioner was appointed and his report was marked as Ext. B. In his report, the Pleader Commissioner stated as to what areas were in possession of the plaintiff and the defendant in the following manner:

Area in possession of the plaintiff:

(i) Area of the plaintiff shop -7x10" x 9x 2"

(ii) Area of the extension of

the plaintiff shop. -910" x 93"

(iii) Area of the space left

for customer in the extended

portion of the plaintiffs shop. -39"x910"

(iv) Counter of the plaintiffs

shop. -11/2"X 8 8"

Area of the Room No. 1-185" x 103"

Area of the Room No. 2 911" x 73"

Area of the Room No. 3 73" x 710"

Area in Possession of the Defendant:

(i) Area of the defendant shop -911" x 7

(ii) Area of the extension of

the defendant shop. -9 x 9 31/2

Measurement of the Upper Floor

(First Floor) in possession

of the plaintiff:

(i) Area of the Room No. 4 196" x 183"

(ii) Area of the Room No. 5 711/2" x 183"

Distance of the Front Door to the drain of both the plaintiffs and

defendants shop-14

6 The learned trial court has merely referred to Ext. B aforementioned without taking into consideration the contents thereof. It appears that the plaintiff contended that the aforementioned three rooms are being used as godowns. The learned trial court in his judgment has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter at all that it is unlikely that for running a small business in stationery goods which is being conducted in a small room, three godowns would be required. Learned court below has held:

Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that p