S. Shamsul Hasan, J.

Plaintiffs are the petitioners here in this application against an adverse order passed under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

2. The opposite party, undisputedly, have been a tenant in the premises in question since 1968 and are paying a rent of Rs.275/- per month since then till today. Attempt to get the rent enhance by the petitioners have failed. The plaintiffs’ petitioners have filed the suit seeking eviction of the opposite party, a public sector under taking, on the ground of personal necessity. Succinctly stated, the personal necessity is that plaintiff no.1, who has been a practising lawyer of the Patna High Court and the working editor of the Bihar Bar Council Journal, published from Patna, now wants to shift his practice to Samastipur, which is his home district, his village Dhurlakh being about 2 kms. Away, Further his brother who is living in his home village wants also to shift to Samastipur to continue his law practice in Samastipur, because it is inconvenient for him to traval the distances from the village to the town everyday.

3. What was required to be examined by the Court below was (i) whether the requirement of the plaintiff petitioners amounted to a personal necessity at all and (ii) if so, whether it was bonafide ? It cannot be doubted that a person who is in the large profession can seek the eviction of a tenant to start his practice in a building that belongs to him. This has been held to be a good personal necessity. The next question, however, is of more important whether the personal necessity is bonafide one or not ? The Court below has held that the personal necessity is not a bonafide one and the purpose for the suit is to get as enhancement of the rent or may say so – having failed to get enhancement, recourse has been taken to this proceeding. The reason for coming to the adverse finding are as follows :-

(i) It is incredible that a person practising in a High Court would even think of shifting to a lower court and by a didactic expression states that generally people want to go to higher place and not to a lower place.

(ii) The plaintiffs have got other houses in the town of Samastipur.

(iii) Plaintiff Sadhu Sharan Sahai has got a house in Patna at Boring Road, which according to the plaintiffs is a rented one but no proof according to the Court below has been brought on the record in regard to this

(iv) The reasons for his resigning from the post of Managing Editor of the Bihar State Bar Council Journal has not been indicated, and

(v) It is completely inconvenient for plaintiffs no.2 to shift from his village to Samastipur thus unsettling the status quo of 35 years.

In my view, all these reasons are not only untenable in law but utterly ridiculous and the munsif concerned should be more circumspect in dealing with this question and not be ridiculously pedantic as he has been. If a man decides to shift from the High Court to a District Court, it cannot be described as going from a higher place to a lower place. The whole inference of the court below is devoid of any commonsense. It depends on the situation, a person is place in. There is nothing to indicate that this assertion of the plaintiffs is false and the plaintiffs had no desire to go there. The inferences arrived at by the Court below, therefore, were entirely conjecture There have been numerous instances when for private reasons, people have abandoned their practice from High Court and shifted to lower Courts and there is nothing unusual about this.

4. The second ground that the plaintiffs have other houses is no longer a good ground for defeating the claim of personal necessity nor only on the basis of the decisions but the law itself. The plaintiff has right to choose the premises which he needs for his personal use. The next ground that the plaintiffs are unable to prove whether plaintiff Sadhu Sharan Sahai has a flat in Patna on r