Judgment Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This Civil revision application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-8-1990 passed by Shri Manoranjan Prasad Srivastava, Munsif, Jamshedpur, in Eviction Suit No. 353 of 1987, whereby and where under the said learned court passed a decree for eviction against the petitioner in Eviction Suit No. 353 of 1987 purported to be on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff-opposite party. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows: The suit property previously belonged to one laxmi Narayan Agarwal. His son Damodar Prasad Chetani by registered deed of sale dated 19-2-1982 transferred the entire house premises comprised within Holding No. 1/104 including the tenanted suit premises to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, his father was running a stationary shop under the name and style of "Ashok Fancy Stores" in one of the shops within the said holding in which the plaintiff was assisting his father. It was stated that the suit premises was required for expansion of the said "Ashok Fancy Stores" as also in order to enable the plaintiff and his two brothers Arun Kumar and Pawan Kumar to start business. 3. The case of the defendant-petitioner, on the other hand, was that Laxmi Narayan Agarwal died leaving behind two sons, besides two daughters and, thus, Damodar Prasad Chetani was incompetent to sell the entire suit holding to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that Raghunath Thakur, the husband of the petitioner was inducted as a tenant, who died leaving behind the petitioner and two sons petitioners No. 2 and 3 and two daughters who have not been impeded as parties to the suit and on the ground the suit liable to be dismissed. It was further contended that the tenanted premises consists of only one room measuring 81/2 x 9; it was further stated that the plaintiff is in occupation of various other buildings. 4. Both the parties adduced their evidence and as indicated hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned judgment the learned trial court held that the plaintiff had been able to prove his bona fide requirement in respect of the suit premises. 5. It appears that before the trial court a Pleader Commissioner was appointed and his report was marked as Ext. 4. Both the parties adduced their evidence and as indicated hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned judgment the learned trial court held that the plaintiff had been able to prove his bona fide requirement in respect of the suit premises. 5. It appears that before the trial court a Pleader Commissioner was appointed and his report was marked as Ext. B. In his report, the Pleader Commissioner stated as to what areas were in possession of the plaintiff and the defendant in the following manner: Area in possession of the plaintiff: (i) Area of the plaintiff shop -7x10" x 9x 2" (ii) Area of the extension of the plaintiff shop. -910" x 93" (iii) Area of the space left for customer in the extended portion of the plaintiffs shop. -39"x910" (iv) Counter of the plaintiffs shop. -11/2"X 8 8" Area of the Room No. 1-185" x 103" Area of the Room No. 2 911" x 73" Area of the Room No. 3 73" x 710" Area in Possession of the Defendant: (i) Area of the defendant shop -911" x 7 (ii) Area of the extension of the defendant shop. -9 x 9 31/2 Measurement of the Upper Floor (First Floor) in possession of the plaintiff: (i) Area of the Room No. 4 196" x 183" (ii) Area of the Room No. 5 711/2" x 183" Distance of the Front Door to the drain of both the plaintiffs and defendants shop-14 6 The learned trial court has merely referred to Ext. B aforementioned without taking into consideration the contents thereof. It appears that the plaintiff contended that the aforementioned three rooms are being used as godowns. The learned trial court in his judgment has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter at all that it is unlikely that for running a small business in stationery goods which is being conducted in a small room, three godowns would be required. Learned court below has held: Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that plaintiff and Pawan Kumar want to establish their own independent business and this cannot be said to be a mere wish or luxury or making ground for evicting the tenant. Even if there is a family business existing in the family it does not necessarily oust the plea of bona fide and reasonable requirement. Even if there is a family business existing in the family it does not necessarily oust the plea of bona fide and reasonable requirement. Landlord cannot be compelled to share with other in the business or livelihood because tenant his necessity for business. In the present circumstances, it appears to me that plaintiff has bona fide and. reasonable requirement for the suit shop for starting his own business. 7. It is on this ground the learned court below found that the plaintiff has proved his bona fide requirement in respect of the suit premises. Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 reads as follows: 11(1)(c).--Where the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord: Provided that where the court thinks that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building and allowing the tenant to continue occupation of the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the Court shall pass a decree accordingly, and fix proportionate fair rent for the portion in occupation of the tenant, which portion shall henceforth constitute the building within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sec. 2 and the rent so fixed shall be deemed to be the fair rent fixed under Sec. 5. 8. From the aforementioned provisions it would be absolutely clear that a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity would be maintain able if requirement is reasonable and in good faith and the same is required for occupation of the landlord or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the properties in suit arc joint family property or building in question is held by him for the benefit of his brothers. In the plaint it has been contended that the parties are living together as joint family. In law a co-sharer is entitled to acquire property in his own name and for his own benefits only. 9. The words "reasonable and in good faith required by the landlord" used in Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act are important. 10. Recently, in Jat Prakash Jalan and Anr. In law a co-sharer is entitled to acquire property in his own name and for his own benefits only. 9. The words "reasonable and in good faith required by the landlord" used in Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act are important. 10. Recently, in Jat Prakash Jalan and Anr. V/s. Rambilas Madan Gopal in C.R. No. 46 of 1990 (R) disposed of on 21-2-1991, a Division Bench of this Court upon considering the various decisions held: In terms of Sec. 11(1)(c) of the said Act, a mandate has been imposed upon the court to satisfy itself that the building is reasonably and in good faith required. Such a determination is possible when the court takes into consideration the facts pleaded by the parties and the evidence brought on records. The court while arriving at a decision is also required to consider that the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord or not. Bona fide means in good faith and genuinely. Bona fide need must be a genuine need for the land to occupy the premises. It is not enough that he really means to occupy it; it must be necessary for him to occupy and such necessity must be genuine one. The expression reasonably required is also relevant and, thus, the same has to be judged according to the dictates of reason and not on any capricious view or on sentiment, While judging the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff, his status, nature of work or vocation, status of his health and other similar factors would be relevant consideration. It must also be borne in mind that in the proviso to Sec. 11(1)(c), the Legislature in its wisdom has chosen to qualify the word satisfy by the expression substantially. The same has evidently been done with a view to keep the interest of the tenant protected by providing occupation to him of the building in part and granting to the landlord occupation to meet his requirement. It further held: Although, in the context of the said Act, the court cannot embark upon adjudication on an issue of comparative hardship, the court while exercising its jurisdiction under the provision to Sec. 11(1)(c) of the said Act has also to take into consideration the needs and convenience of both the landlord and tenant. It further held: Although, in the context of the said Act, the court cannot embark upon adjudication on an issue of comparative hardship, the court while exercising its jurisdiction under the provision to Sec. 11(1)(c) of the said Act has also to take into consideration the needs and convenience of both the landlord and tenant. It has also to consider as to how best both the landlord and tenant can be accommodated in the same premises. 11 The learned court below evidently has not passed the judgment in accordance with the well-settled principles of law. 12. However, in view of the order proposed to be passed, this need not detain me any further. 13. It has been stated at the bar that the plaintiff has already taken possession of the suit premises in execution of the decree passed by the learned court below. From the records of the case, it appears that the plaintiff at one point of time offered the defendant a room in the first floor. One of the sons of the petitioner who examined himself as D. W. 2 stated that it is not possible to run his Saloon because the customer would not go there. 14. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submitted that in view of the fact that the plaintiff has already taken possession of the suit premises, he would accept the offer made by the plaintiff to induct the petitioner as a tenant in the room situate in the upper floor. From the evidence of PW. 3 it appears that he stated that it is possible to construct a stair-case from the back side. 15. Mr. N.K. Prasad stated that his client is prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 140 per month, i.e. doubt the amount of the stipulated rent by way of rent for the said room. 16. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party could not dispute the fact that before the court below such an offer was made. 17. This revision application is in continuation of the suit. The plaintiff having made the offer to the defendant to occupy a room situate on the first floor cannot there from. 18. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party could not dispute the fact that before the court below such an offer was made. 17. This revision application is in continuation of the suit. The plaintiff having made the offer to the defendant to occupy a room situate on the first floor cannot there from. 18. In this view of the matter, it is directed that the plaintiff shall put the defendant in possession of the room which is situated on the first floor of the house bearing Holding No. 1/104, by providing a stair-case for approaching the same from the back side of the premises by 30-4-1991, so that the defendants may occupy the same with effect from 1-5-1991 wherefore the defendants-petitioners shall pay Rs. 140 per month to the plaintiff by way of rent. 19. In the event, the plaintiff fails to comply with aforementioned direction, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court shall stand set aside and it would be open to the learned court below to restore possession of the suit premises to the defendant-petitioner upon initiation of restitution proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent mentioned herein before, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.