V. Nath, J.

Heard Mr. K.N. Choubey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

2. This revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to in short the B.B.C. Act) against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2013 passed by learned Munsif 1st, Gaya by which the learned court below has decreed the suit for eviction. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The suit premises as described in the plaint is a shop in the ground floor of the building of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity for establishing her son in business after completion of his studies. It has been averred in the plaint that Vivek Kumar the son of the plaintiff is a student of the Bachelor of B.B.M. Course in 3rd year in Gaya College, Gaya. In the written statement, defendant denied the need of the plaintiff for establishing her son in business on the ground that generally after completion of the course of B.B.M., a student is desirous to complete the course of M.B.A and thereafter to make attempt for ensuring a job in any company or bank, and there is no prospect in the town like Gaya for a person to start a business after the completion of the B.B.M. course. It has also been pleaded that in the building where the suit shop is situate is a three storied building and the entire first floor is vacant which is suitable for business. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff has got two other houses in Tekari Road and Mohalla - Sarai, Gaya and therefore her need is only a pretence and not bona fide.

3. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on their behalf, the learned court below has returned the finding on the issue of personal necessity in favour of the plaintiff and has passed the impugned judgment and decree granting the decree for eviction as prayed.

4. Mr. Choubey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has not properly considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the need of the plaintiff for the suit premises as pleaded is bona fide and reasonable. The learned senior counsel has placed the deposition of the P.W.2 (plaintiff), P.W.3 (son of the plaintiff) and also the deposition of P.W.4 who is a friend of the son of the plaintiff and has laid particular emphasis on the deposition of the friend of the son of the plaintiff to elaborate his submissions. It has also been argued that the plaintiff has no unfettered right to claim eviction when the other premises are admittedly lying vacant. The learned senior counsel has also contended that the learned court below has not taken into notice the subsequent event that the son of the plaintiff, for establishing whom the suit has been filed, has been doing business in Delhi and therefore the need has vanished. The learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision by the apex court in the case of Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt v. Rashiklal Manilal Shah, (1997)5 SCC 457.

5. Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the learned court below has recorded the findings on the basis of appreciation of evidence and therefore those findings cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable in any manner and it is also not the case of the petitioner that those findings have stemmed out of non-consideration of evidence or based upon surmises and conjectures. It has been contended that even the defendant has not pleaded in his written statement that the son of the plaintiff has been doing business in Delhi and reliance upon the deposition