A landlord's requirement for personal use and occupation must be genuine and bona fide, and the court can consider the landlord's previous conduct in obtaining eviction of another tenant on the same ground and then letting out the premises to another tenant on higher rent in determining the bona fides of the current requirement.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. This civil revision application by the defendant-petitioner under Sec. 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for short) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1997 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 29 of 1994 whereby the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Dhanbad, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal necessity as contemplated under Sec. 11 (1) (c) of the said Act.

3. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party is that he is the owner and the landlord of Schedule A property comprising within Holding No. 281, Ward No. I, within Dhanbad Municipality situate at Hirapur, Dhanbad. The plaintiff let out the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 152.00 and the rent was payable by the first week of subsequent month. The plaintiff alleged that he has a big family, consisting of six sons and two daughters. Out of six sons and two daughters, four sons and one daughter are students and the plaintiff has to bear all the expenses of his establishment from his small income. The plaintiff has got only one source of income, i.e. house rent and he is getting rent only to the extent of Rs. 2,500.00 per month and that amount is not sufficient to maintain such a big family. The further case of the plaintiff was that his elder son passed matriculation and second son got I.T-I- training and are sitting idle since long for want of any job. The plaintiff wants to start manufacturing business of sheet metal in the shop premises to increase his family income and also to settle his second son-Anant Kumar Rai, who is competent to do the said business. The suit premises is suitable to start the said manufacturing business of metal sheets and, therefore, the plaintiff required the tenanted premises for his own bona fide use and occupation to increase the income of his family and also to settle his second son. Since the defendant refused to vacate the suit premises on repeated requests, the instant suit has been filed.

4. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by obtaining leave and by filing written statement denying each and every allegation made in the plaint. According to the defendant the area of the suit premises is 202.6 sq. feet. It is stated that the defendant is a handicapped person and has been running a cycle and Rickshaw repairing shop is the tenanted premises consisting of two small kutcha khaparposh rooms since 1960 on a monthly rent at Rs. 50.00 , but in January, 1990 the plaintiff threatened the defendant to vacate the premises or to enhance the rent for a sum of Rs. 175.00 and the defendant/petitioner under the compelling circumstances started paying the rent the rate of Rs, 125.00 per month. However, the rent was ultimately enhanced as the instance of the plaintiff by filing a rent fixation case. The defendant further denied the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff. It has specifically been alleged that the plaintiff required the tenanted premises for giving it to-another person after taking huge amount of salami and on higher rent. It is stated that the claim of personal necessity of the plaintiff is not bona fide; rather malafide, which is evident from the fact that in the year, 1986 the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against another tenant on the ground of personal necessity of his son and the said suit (Title Suit No. 10 of 1986) was compromised and the plaintiff got vacant possession of the tenanted premises. However, the plaintiff did not set up his son in business; rather after constructing a pucca house over the said premises and after taking huge amount of salami of Rs, 10,000.00 let out the same to another tenant, who is running his business in the name of Poddar Book Stores on payment of higher rent. It is further stated in t