In an eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity, the landlord must establish that the requirement of the suit premises is reasonable and in good faith, and the court must consider the need and convenience of both the landlord and the tenant.

Narayan Roy, J.

1. This civil revision application under Sec.14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 14.6-1990 passed by Sri S. Sharma, 1st Addl. Munsit, Dhanbed, in Title (Eviction) Suit no.39 cf 1983, whereby and where under the learned Munsif has decreed the plaintiff-opposite partys suit for eviction on the ground of their personal necessity.

2. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit claiming inter alia, following reliefs ;-

(a) For a decree for eviction from the premises described in Schedule B of the plaint be passed in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant. (b) For a decree for damage @ Rs.100/- per day for the period from 1-4-1986 to the date of decree for eviction. (o) For the colt of the suit ; and (d) For any other or further reliefs.

3. In the plaint it was contended by the plaintiff that the property in suit as described in Schedule-a of the plaint has been purchased by the plaintiff from one Sri Rajesh Kumar Mehta by a registered sale deed dated 14-2-1986. According to the plaintiff, the firm consisting of six parners and the aforementioned "pathk Mension described in Schedule-a* has been purchased for the purpose of using the ground floor as the office of the firm with separate chambers of the partners and the first floor and the second floor having six flats for the residential purpose of the six partners of the plaintiffs firm. The partners of the plaintiffs firm have no other building except the said pathak Mansion which the plaintiff and its partners required for their reasonable and bona fide use and occupation.

4. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is in occupation of a portion of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs, 300/- per month.

5. Pursuant to the plaintiffs title eviction suit as aforesaid, was instituted and the defendant was summoned and accordingly, the defendant filed an application seeking leave to contest the suit as required under Sec.14 (4)of the Act. The application, as aforesaid, filed by the petitioner under section 14 (4) of the Act was heard and it appears that the plaintiff did not object to the petitioners prayer for seefeing leave to contest the suit and, as such, the petitioner was granted leave to contest the suit and the petitioner was directed to file a written statement. However, it further appears that the petitioner did not file any written statement and an application was filed that the affidavit under Sec.14 (4) of the Act field for seefeing leave to contest the suit be treated as his written statement. It appears that the petitioner, however, contended in his application under Sec.14 (4) of the act which was treated as his written statement and disputed the right of rajesh Kumar Mehta to transfer the Schedule-a premises to the plaintiff and further disputed that the property transferred is collusive transaction without consideration with a view to seek eviction of the petitioner and for inducting another tenants for getting higher rent and Salami. It has further been contended that the petitioner was never informed about the transfer of the suit premises and it is absolutely false to say that the plaintiff has purchased the suit premises for the purpose of using the ground floor as the office of the firm with separate chambers of the partners and the first and second floor for the residential purpose of the six partners of the firm. It has further been contended that the partners of the Plaintiffs firm are not residing at Dhanbad but they are redding at Oirldih and they have got several houses and business at Oiridih and andt the same time they have got houses at Dhanbad also and as such, they have ao personal necessity of the suit premises stnd the plaintiff does not require the suit premises bonafidely and reasonably for his own use and occupation.

6. In the suit both the parties have adduced their evidences and have also