Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. This civil revision application under Sec.14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 14.6-1990 passed by Sri S. Sharma, 1st Addl. Munsit, Dhanbed, in Title (Eviction) Suit no.39 cf 1983, whereby and where under the learned Munsif has decreed the plaintiff-opposite partys suit for eviction on the ground of their personal necessity. 2. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit claiming inter alia, following reliefs ;- (a) For a decree for eviction from the premises described in Schedule B of the plaint be passed in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant. (b) For a decree for damage @ Rs.100/- per day for the period from 1-4-1986 to the date of decree for eviction. (o) For the colt of the suit ; and (d) For any other or further reliefs. 3. In the plaint it was contended by the plaintiff that the property in suit as described in Schedule-a of the plaint has been purchased by the plaintiff from one Sri Rajesh Kumar Mehta by a registered sale deed dated 14-2-1986. According to the plaintiff, the firm consisting of six parners and the aforementioned "pathk Mension described in Schedule-a* has been purchased for the purpose of using the ground floor as the office of the firm with separate chambers of the partners and the first floor and the second floor having six flats for the residential purpose of the six partners of the plaintiffs firm. The partners of the plaintiffs firm have no other building except the said pathak Mansion which the plaintiff and its partners required for their reasonable and bona fide use and occupation. 4. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is in occupation of a portion of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs, 300/- per month. 5. Pursuant to the plaintiffs title eviction suit as aforesaid, was instituted and the defendant was summoned and accordingly, the defendant filed an application seeking leave to contest the suit as required under Sec.14 (4)of the Act. 5. Pursuant to the plaintiffs title eviction suit as aforesaid, was instituted and the defendant was summoned and accordingly, the defendant filed an application seeking leave to contest the suit as required under Sec.14 (4)of the Act. The application, as aforesaid, filed by the petitioner under section 14 (4) of the Act was heard and it appears that the plaintiff did not object to the petitioners prayer for seefeing leave to contest the suit and, as such, the petitioner was granted leave to contest the suit and the petitioner was directed to file a written statement. However, it further appears that the petitioner did not file any written statement and an application was filed that the affidavit under Sec.14 (4) of the Act field for seefeing leave to contest the suit be treated as his written statement. It appears that the petitioner, however, contended in his application under Sec.14 (4) of the act which was treated as his written statement and disputed the right of rajesh Kumar Mehta to transfer the Schedule-a premises to the plaintiff and further disputed that the property transferred is collusive transaction without consideration with a view to seek eviction of the petitioner and for inducting another tenants for getting higher rent and Salami. It has further been contended that the petitioner was never informed about the transfer of the suit premises and it is absolutely false to say that the plaintiff has purchased the suit premises for the purpose of using the ground floor as the office of the firm with separate chambers of the partners and the first and second floor for the residential purpose of the six partners of the firm. It has further been contended that the partners of the Plaintiffs firm are not residing at Dhanbad but they are redding at Oirldih and they have got several houses and business at Oiridih and andt the same time they have got houses at Dhanbad also and as such, they have ao personal necessity of the suit premises stnd the plaintiff does not require the suit premises bonafidely and reasonably for his own use and occupation. 6. In the suit both the parties have adduced their evidences and have also produced necessary documents. Both the sides have examined ono witness each in this ease. The plaintiff himself is P. W.1 and the defendant is the d. W.1. 7. 6. In the suit both the parties have adduced their evidences and have also produced necessary documents. Both the sides have examined ono witness each in this ease. The plaintiff himself is P. W.1 and the defendant is the d. W.1. 7. The learned court below by the impugned judgment has decreed the eviction suit. 8. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the requirement of the plaintiff for use of the suit premises appears to be not bonafide, inasmuch aa that the partnership firm will not require separate chambers and separate flat for each of its partners. Mr. Dabi Prasad has drawn my attention to the fact that atleast one of the partners has residential house at Oiridih and has also flat at Bombay, Calcutta and Dhanbad. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, contended that the learned court below was not correct in passing the decree for eviction on the ground that the plaintiff requires a suit premises bonafide and for its occupation. 9. Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the the opposite party has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has urged that the finding recorded by the Court below as to the personal necessity of the plaintiff is bated oa the evidences of the parties and the same should not be disturbed. He further contended that once the plaintiff establishes his case of personal necessity he has to select his building for his own use and business, and mere existence of other accommodation is not sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff from getting the decree for eviction. Mr. N. K. Prasad baa further contended that the plea of the petitioner that the transaction of the suit property is a collusive one is not tenable in law as the defendant is a stranger and he has no jurisdiction to question the sale in question. Mr. Mr. N. K. Prasad baa further contended that the plea of the petitioner that the transaction of the suit property is a collusive one is not tenable in law as the defendant is a stranger and he has no jurisdiction to question the sale in question. Mr. Prasad further urged that the need of the plaintiff for requiring the suit premises for bis personal use is an admitted fact, in view of paragraph 3 of the defendants evidence and further since no pleadings have been taken in the written statement by the petitioner that there is sufficient space in the suit premises, the court can not act upon the mere evidence of the petitioner that there is sufficient space for the business of the plaintiff io the suit premises. 10. P. W.1 Bishunath Frasad, who ia the plaintiff in this case and is alio one of the partners of the firm has seated in his evidence that the suit premises has been purchased by the united Exhibitor of the plaintiff for residential purpose. He has further stated that be is the managing partner of the firm united Exhibitor and his 5 sons, namely, 1. Nirmal Kumar 2. Abbay Kumar, 3. Nirbhay Kumar, 4. Simal Kumar and 5. Raj Kumar are partners of United Exhibitors. He has further slated in bis evidence that be along with his tons were residing at Giridih end at Giridih he has several houses and bis business. He has further stated that in Bombay and Calcutta also he has bis house and his business. He has further stated in his evidence that his family members reside at Giridih and he has got bis business at dhanbad also and prior to purchase of the suit premises he is doing bis business at dbanbad and at Dhanbad be resides in the guest house of the Cenama ball and bis partners also usually visit Dhanbad. He has further stated in his evidence that at Dhanbad he has got his hotel, namely, Gaylord Hotel. He has further stated in bis evidence that the pethak Mension which is the subject-matter of the suit premises in this suit is 3 story buildings and besides ground floor 6 flats are there and other tenants are also there in this suit premises, 11. He has further stated in bis evidence that the pethak Mension which is the subject-matter of the suit premises in this suit is 3 story buildings and besides ground floor 6 flats are there and other tenants are also there in this suit premises, 11. The defendant has examined himself as D. W.1 and in his evidence be has stated that the plaintiff does not require the suit premises for the chambers of bis partners and the plaintiff and its partners have their houses at Giridih, Bombay, Calcutta and Dhanbad. He has further stated that in the ground floor 3 to 4 apartments are already vacant and the plaintiff has sufficient space for construction of chambers for his partners. He has further stated in bis evidence that in the first floor also some flats are vacant which can be utilised by the plaintiff for its use and occupation. 12. In an eviction suit on personal ground, the basio ingredient, that the personal requirement of the landlord for suit premises is reasonable and the same is made in a good faith must be established, as required under section 11 (1) (c) of the Act and in view of proviso to Sec.11 (1) (o) of the Act, the Court has also to sake into consideration the need and convenience of both landlord and the tenant. 13. On summarising the evidences led in this case and on perusal of the judgment under revision it appears that the learned court below has not decided the issues involved in this case in a correct prospective of the pleas and evidences of the parties and has proceeded in a most perfunctory manner and has jumped to conclusion without appreciation of the evidences on records that the suit premises is bonafidely and reasonably required by the plaintiff for his personal use. The learned court below has not taken pains in taking into consideration the evidences of P. W.1 and has merely summarised his findings on the basis of the plea of the plaintiff that the suit premises is required by the plaintiff bonafidely and reasonably. The learned court below has not taken pains in taking into consideration the evidences of P. W.1 and has merely summarised his findings on the basis of the plea of the plaintiff that the suit premises is required by the plaintiff bonafidely and reasonably. From the evidence of P. W.1, it appears that besides the suit premises he has other bouses in the different places and also at Dhanbad and it was bounden duty of the Court below to consider this aspect of the matter and judge the requirement of the plaintiff as to whether the suit premises is reasonably and in good faith is requited by the landlord as required under Sec.11 (1) (c)and proviso to Sec.11 (1) (o) of the Act. From too evidence of D. W.1 also it goes to show that the plaintiff ham his house, ia different places and also at Dhanbad, the learned Court below should have weighed the evidences of the respective parties and should have recorded a fiadiog on the requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff, In a summary trail of the suit in question, the Court is requited to satisfy itself is to the genuineness of the requirement of the landlord under Sec.11 (1) (c) of the Act aad the court it required to consider the question on merit on the basis of the evidences adduced by the parties and in my opinion the Coutt should have come to an object determination of the claim of the landlord. 14. In a suit for eviction on the ground of personal requirement it is not only necessary to find the fact that the building is reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation but also that the requirement is required in good faith and, therefore, the mere assertion of the plaintiff that the premises in question is required for his personal use cannot be said to be conclusive. The distinction between desire and need of the plaintiff to himself occupy the premises has to be kept in mind and that can be done only when sufficient evidence is led on behalf of the parties. 15. The distinction between desire and need of the plaintiff to himself occupy the premises has to be kept in mind and that can be done only when sufficient evidence is led on behalf of the parties. 15. A bare perusal of the judgment under revision, it is not clear as to whether the other buildings which are admittedly owned by the plaintiff in the town of Dhanbad were vacant or not and whether the same were suitable for occupation by the plaintiff and merely because the landlord has a free choice to select the accommodation for his business will not satisfy the court in coming to a conclusion that the suit premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the plaintiff. 16. In view of the discussion and findings recorded above, I am of the definite opinion that the learned court below has not taken into consideration the evidences of the parties in a correct perspective of the case and the findings arrived at by the court below cannot be sustained in law and the matters require reconsideration by the Trial Court. 17. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 14-0-1990 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for afresh decision and reconsideration in accordance with law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 18. Since the suit relates back to the year 1986 and the same is pending for eviction on the ground of personal necessity the court below ia directed to pass final order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. Civil revision allowed.