S. N. Jha, J.

This revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the defendant is directed against an order for this eviction from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff-opposite party.

2. The plaintiff's case, shortly stated, is that the suit premises had been let out on rent for a period twenty years commencing from 18. 4. 1966. After the expiry of the aforesaid period of lease, the tenancy was to continue on monthly basis terminable by giving notice. After superannuation from service on 30. 11. 1985, the petitioner was in need of the suit premises for his own use to do business and as such, the defendant was liable for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1) (c) of the Act. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises was situated in the heart of Katihar town which was the best business centre of the town. An alternative plea of eviction on the ground of expiry of the aforesaid fixed term-lease on 17. 4. 1986 under Section 11(1) (e) was also taken. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant by keeping the eastern part of the suit premises continuously locked and allowing stray animals to occupy the outer space had caused damage to the portion, consequent whereof the municipal authorities had issued notice to reconstruct the building or to make thorough repairs which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated.

3. The case of the defendant-petitioner, as set out in the written statement in its material particulars, is that the plaintiff had no bona fide and reasonable requirement of the premises for doing business and the aforesaid plea had been taken with some ulterior motive of making wrongful gain by enhancing the rent and obtaining Salami by letting out the same to other person. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff had got several houses at Katihar located at important business centers and if he had any desire to start any business, he could have done so immediately after his retirement from service in any of those buildings. It was also alleged that the plaintiff was getting pension and receiving rent from other houses to the tune of about Rs. 10,000/- per month. An alternative plea, however was also taken to the effect that the defendant was ready and willing to vacate the eastern part of the suit premises, the area of which was larger than the western part, which could serve the alleged need of the plaintiff for doing his own business.

4. The trial court, on consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree for eviction on the ground of expiry of the period of lease under Clause (e) of Section 11(1). It also held that the plaintiff does not require the whole suit premises in order to carry out any building work at the instance of the Municipality and as such the plaintiff was Dot entitled to get any decree for eviction on this ground as well. However, the court has accepted the plea of personal necessity and directed eviction of the defendant on the aforesaid ground giving rise to the present revision.

5. Mr. K. D. Chatterjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made three fold submission. He has submitted that in order to succeed in a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity, a definite need must be stated. He pointed out that the filed stated in the plaint was for opening a cafeteria in the premises but in the evidence the plaintiff mentioned about starting a transport business therein. According to the learned counsel, there is difference between wish and actual need and that need can be established only if sufficient evidence is led to show that necessary funds etc were available for doing the particular business. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Agraw