Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J. – I have already heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. The present civil revision application has been preferred by the defendant/petitioner to set aside the judgment/order dated 02.05.2014 in Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2008, passed by Munsif, Dehri-on-sone, Rohtas, directing the defendant/petitioner to vacate suit premises in favour of the plaintiff/opposite party.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the landlady of the premises/plaintiff/opposite party brought a suit against the defendant/petitioner with the averment that he is the tenant of the premises in question and is running a shop of confectionery/ sweets. As per the deed of kirayanama, the tenancy commenced on 01.01.2008 and was to be terminated on 30.11.2008. The rent payable was fixed at Rs. 800 per month. The deed of rent agreement is Ext. 1. It was stipulated in the deed that the premises was to be vacated at a prior notice of two months. In paragraph-2 of the plaint, it has been averred that, without the consent of the landlady, the petitioner herein installed an overhead water tank in his shop. She sent a letter to the petitioner/tenant on 27.05.2008 for removal of the overhead water tank, in reply whereof the tenant demanded Rs. 30,000/- from the landlady in lieu of the cost incurred on the installation of that overhead water tank. In paragraph-3 of the plaint, it is averred that she sent a notice to the petitioner on 02.06.2008, requesting him to remove the overhead water tank, but he paid no heed and sent reply to the Advocate of the plaintiff on 02.07.2008 and warned the plaintiff to take shelter of the court. In paragraph- 4 of the plaint, it has been averred that the Advocate of the plaintiff sent a reply on 09.07.2008, directing the tenant to vacate the premises till 10.08.2008 on the ground of personal necessity. In paragraph-5 of the plaint, the plaintiff described the personal necessity of the premises for the business of her son and it was said to be a bona fide requirement of the plaintiff.

4. The petitioner in his written statement denied the ground of personal necessity as well as the violation of the terms of the deed of agreement.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaint itself shows that the landlady was not happy with the petitioner as he had installed an overhead water tank in his shop which was necessary for smooth running of the shop as it was a shop of sweets/confectionery. The installation of overhead water tank as per the submission of the learned counsel is neither the material deterioration nor wastage to the property. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the present suit has been filed for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide and reasonable personal necessity, but the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that it was her personal necessity for the need of her son in bona fide and reasonable manner. The conduct of the landlady/plaintiff itself shows that the premises in question was not required by her, rather she was infuriated due to installation of the overhead water tank, which was necessary for smooth functioning of his shop. In paragraph-3 of her plaint, she admitted the fact that she sent a notice to the tenant to remove the water tank within a week. That letter was sent on 27.05.2008. In that letter, she did not mention that the premises was necessary for business of her son. Again on 02.06.2008, she sent a notice and in that notice also there is no whisper of personal necessity of the premises for her son. Only in the 3rd notice, which was sent to the appellant on 09.07.2008 it has been mentioned for the first time that she needed the premises for the personal necessity of her son. This conduct of the plaintiff/opposite party itself shows that the ground of bona fide personal necessity is afterthought and it has not been proved. He has submitted further that in the plaint it has only been mentioned that the premises was needed for personal neces