Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This Revision petition has arisen under Sec. 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Rent, Lease and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree for eviction passed by the Munsif at Daltonganj in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 15 of 1993. 2. The Opposite Party-plaintiff filed the above mention suit on the ground of necessity for setting up his son Bishny Dutt Mishra in wholesale medicine business in the suit premises. According to the plaintiff there was no other suitable accommodation and commodious place to set up his aforesaid son for carrying on his wholesale business of medicine. It was contested by the defendants-petitioners assailing that the Opposite Party was not the landlord and owner of the building in question and that the Opposite Party did not reasonably and in good faith required the building for the use and occupation of his son. According to the defendant-petitioner, it was merely a devise to evict the petitioners. It was further alleged in the written Statement that the Opposite Party had divided the shop in his occupation into two parts and let to one M/s. Shree Ram Bastralaya. It was further contended that the Opposite Party had let out different parts of the building which were lying vacant for business purposes to M/s. Mansingh and M/s. Gurdayal Singh. It was also asserted that the Opposite Partys son Bishnu Dutta was not sitting idle and was the partner of M/s. Jagdish Bastralayas, the partnership firm of Opposite Party and his family members Originally only defendant No. 1 was the party, but after written statement was filed, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were also made parties to avoid any difficulty in the Eviction decree being executed. 3. The plaintiffs case is that the suit shop house is situated within Khas Mahal building having Holding No. 236 and it was jointly owned by the father of the plaintiff, namely Bhikhari Mishra and his uncle Sukhdeo Mishra. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 1962 and wife of Sukhdeo Mishra also died in 1964 in the estate of jointness. Sukhdeo Mishra died issueless in 1983 leaving behind the plaintiff as the legal representative and as such the plaintiff became the owner of entire Khas Mahal holding. It is a double storied building and the suit premises is of one part of the ground floor. Sukhdeo Mishra died issueless in 1983 leaving behind the plaintiff as the legal representative and as such the plaintiff became the owner of entire Khas Mahal holding. It is a double storied building and the suit premises is of one part of the ground floor. The defendants were inducted in the suit by Sukhdeo Mishra, uncle of the plaintiff for carrying on business of cloth. The plaintiff also carrying business of cloth in a portion of the suit building in the name and style of M/s. Jagdish Bastralaya. According to the plaintiff, the tenanted premises of the defendant is big in comparison of the shop held by the plaintiff. The defendants have also taken on rent one room on the first floor of the said building for gbdown purpose and separate tenancy is there in respect of that godown room. The plaintiff scase is that his son Bishnu Dutt Mishra is under graduate and is sitting idle for a long time and he wants to set up a wholesale medicine shop in the premises of suit, which is legally situated and he made request to the defendant to vacate the suit premises but the defendants did not pay heed to it and hence the suit was filed. 4. The defendants business in the suit premises is run in the name and style of M/s. Madhukunj and it being a partnership business, all other partners were thus made parties after the written statement was filed and the suit proceeded accordingly. Several issues were framed by the learned court below which run as follows:- 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2. Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit?- 3. Is the suit hit by provision of Indian Partnership Act? 4. Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary party? 5. Is the suit barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? 6. Is the Court fee paid adequate? 7. Has the plaintiff personal bonafide and reasonable need of the premises in suit? 8. Whether the Teasonable requirement of the plaintiff is substantially satisfied by evicting the defendants from one part only of the premises in suit or from the entire premises? 9. Is plaintiff entitled to the reliefs claimed? 10. To what relief or reliefs if any the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. 8. Whether the Teasonable requirement of the plaintiff is substantially satisfied by evicting the defendants from one part only of the premises in suit or from the entire premises? 9. Is plaintiff entitled to the reliefs claimed? 10. To what relief or reliefs if any the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. The only vital issue in the suit is issue No. 7 and the said issue has been decided in favour of the landlord-plaintiff and as such the suit was decreed. Although various other defences were taken but those were given up at the time of this Revision petition and Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, appearing for and on behalf of the defendant-petitioner has strenuously argued that the plaintiff-landlord has miserably failed to prove his bonafide and good faith in evicting the defendants from the suit premises. According to the defendants, when they denied to be the guarantor for the business of the plaintiff, M/s. Jagdish Bastralaya, this eviction suit has been filed although there is no necessity of the plaintiff to set up his son for a wholesale medicine business because according to the defendants the son of the plaintiff was already a partner of M/s. Jagdish Bastralaya and he was never sitting idle. Moreover, he left the College in the year 1971 and it cannot be imagined that the plaintiff would be not making any attempt to set up his son for these long days when he gave up studies long back in the year 1971, Moreover in the meantime within a short period prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff had rented out three different vacant rooms and as such if really there was any need of the plaintiff to set up is son for the medicine business, he could have utilized those accommodations before giving them on rent. 6. Different witness have been examined in the case at the time of trial of the case. The plaintiff produced an unregistered deed showing dissolution of the partnership in the year 1992 itself regarding M/s. Jagdish Bastralaya showing that the wife and son of the plaintiff, who were sleeping partners in the business have been dissolved and the business was made a Proprietary firm belonging solely to the plaintiff. The plaintiff produced an unregistered deed showing dissolution of the partnership in the year 1992 itself regarding M/s. Jagdish Bastralaya showing that the wife and son of the plaintiff, who were sleeping partners in the business have been dissolved and the business was made a Proprietary firm belonging solely to the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendants-petitioners produced a letter from the State Bank of India, to the effect that the partnership business was still alive in the name and style of Jagdish Bastrlaya in the year 1994 also. 7. All these matters were discussed by the Learned Court below but then decreed the suit holding that it was the plaintiff who could know best which shop house would be best suited for the purpose of setting up the business of his son. 8. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, appearing for an don behalf of the defendants-petitioners has criticised the judgment of eviction on the ground that the learned court below could not appreciate the case of the defendants in its proper perspective and even the partial eviction decided by him is also against all norms and principles of law enunciated by this Court and also by the Apex Court. His further submission is that the learned court below had decided the reasonableness of requirement of the plaintiff on the basis of his ipsi dixit or his mere desire to occupy the suit premises without considering whether there was really any requirement of the shop house as a whole or not. Moreover, nowhere according to him, there is any evidence from the side of the plaintiff or his son, the dimention of the accommodation needed for setting up wholesale medicine business. 9. Mr. N.K. Prasad, appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party, on the other hand, submitted that when there is a definite finding by the learned court below regarding the bonafide necessity basing on the evidence and the legal position, there is no scope this Court to reappraise the same even if the same is based not only on facts but also on mixed question of law. He has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court as (Mattulal ` Radhe Lai). 10. He has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court as (Mattulal ` Radhe Lai). 10. It may be mentioned here that the finding given in that case was in a Second Appeal and there were findings of fact given by the courts below which were the fact finding courts but here the present case is a revision petition under Sec. 14 (B) of the B.B.C. Act directly against the Eviction decree passed by the learned court below. 11. According to Mr. Prasad, all points regarding the reasonableness and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and the partial eviction were decided by the learned court below after considering the submissions made and pleadings of both the parties and there is no scope of interference in the revision petition by this Court. 12. The facts remained admitted in the case to that extent that just before filing of the suit for eviction, the plaintiff divided his own shop house into two parts and had given in the rent to another party. Moreover, two other rooms one godown and Anr. on the back side of the shop rooms were given on rent to two other parties before filing of the suit and as evidence goes, " plaintiffs son Bishnu Dutt was then also sitting idle. According to the plaintiff, as is submitted by Mr. N.K. Prasad, those rooms which were rented out before filing of the eviction suit were not at all accomodius or suited for the purpose of opening of wholesale medicine business for his son because those were on the back side having no frontage and there was" no such scope of opening up of business in those premises. About the plaintiffs son idleness was also questioned by the defendants and although it is stated that there was dissolution of partnership but the defendants could procure one bank letter to the effect that M/s. Jagdish Bastralaya was still running as a partnership business, but the learned court below has disbelieved it. 13. About the plaintiffs son idleness was also questioned by the defendants and although it is stated that there was dissolution of partnership but the defendants could procure one bank letter to the effect that M/s. Jagdish Bastralaya was still running as a partnership business, but the learned court below has disbelieved it. 13. I do not want to a enter into that aspect and even if the plaintiffs son is a partner to the cloth business of the plaintiff then also he may open up a business of his own and for that reason he may require commodious space for that purpose, but for wholesale medicine business, how much commodious space is required, has not been stated anywhere in the evidence adduced from the side of the plaintiff. Normally for a wholesale medicine business, an office is required to be opened for entertaining customers and a godown for storing the medicine. Medical Pharamy is totally different from the wholesale medicine business. A pharmacy requires a commodious shop room having frontage towards the main road but for opening medicine business, godown may not be required to have frontage toward the main road. Here, it is found that a godown was given in rent to one person who has deposed for and on behalf of the defendants but whole deposing he had already vacated that godown as it was not convenient for him. So, the godown was vacant while the judgment was delivered. Whether that godown could be used after some repair for the purpose of wholesale medicine business or not, has not been considered by the learned court below. The shop room of the plaintiff was divided into two and one part has been given on rent just before filing of the suit, It was also not considered whether that part of the shop room which has now been given to Shri Ram Bastralaya could be sufficient for the purpose of opening up of office room of wholesale medicine business or not. However, that portion was not vacant at that point of time but it can be very well considered whether the present shop rooms in possession of the defendants which measures 22/18, whether can be partitioned to satisfy the need of opening up wholesale medicine business of the plaintiffs son or not. However, that portion was not vacant at that point of time but it can be very well considered whether the present shop rooms in possession of the defendants which measures 22/18, whether can be partitioned to satisfy the need of opening up wholesale medicine business of the plaintiffs son or not. It appears that the learned court below had applied the principle that it is the landlord who knows best which premises would be suitable and commodious for opening up his own business. That principle applies when there are different tenants and the landlord whose one of those for the purpose of eviction, but that is not the case here. Only because the plaintiff and his son said that partial eviction of the suit premises would not satisfy their requirement without specifying the dimension of their requirement, cannot be the basis of denying partial eviction without going deep into the matter as mentioned above. It is the duty of the court to determine at the first instance the extent of the premises which the landlord reasonably requires for opening up his sons business and such determinationmust be objectively done and not on the basis of his ipsi dixit or mere desire. Desire is totally different from need as contemplated under Sec. 11 (1)(c) of the B.B.C. Act. After finding out the exact extent of requirement of the landlord then court is to apply test whether such requirement can be satisfied substantial by ordering partial eviction or not. The principle has been laid down by the Apex Court as reported in -- In the present case, that has not been done, It appears that the learned court below could not at all consider the objective determination and subjective satisfaction which are most reasonable ingredients for the partial eviction. In a recent judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, reported in -- , Krishna Murari Prasad V/s. Mitar Singh wherein similar suit premises having 24/22 were also considered for the purpose of partial eviction to satisfy the need of the landlord. 14. In a busy commercial place the needs are always considered in the attending circumstances available and various from place to place. In a commercial area even if needs are more the same are also being concised for the purpose of lack of commodious place. 15. 14. In a busy commercial place the needs are always considered in the attending circumstances available and various from place to place. In a commercial area even if needs are more the same are also being concised for the purpose of lack of commodious place. 15. Although, in the present case, it appears that the plaintiff-landlord is bent upon evicting the defendant as he did not consider to satisfy his needs" for his sons accommodation for opening up of a wholesale medicine business in the premises which had been already let out just before the filing of the suit. Still then, if I consider that those were not commodious for purpose of necessity of the plaintiff-landlord and his son then also the fact remains to be proved as to whether the partial eviction can satisfy the needs as pleaded from the side of the plaintiff. It has been mentioned by the plaintiff both in his pleadings and in his evidence that the suit premises in having much more area than the premises of the plaintiffs shop together with Shree Ram Bastralaya. 16. In that view of the matter, it.remained the bounded duty of the court to see whether partial eviction can satisfy the need of the plaintiff or not. I do not want to go into deep the factual matter in the present case for the reason than I am going to remand the case to the learned court below for reconsidering the matter of eviction on the needs of the plaintiff and his son. 17. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of eviction is hereby set aside and the case is sent back to the lower court for reconsideration of the partial eviction in the light of the observations made above. The learned Munsif at Daltongaj shall decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 15/93 and if necessary giving opportunities of adducing further evidence to both the parties and dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of communication of this Order and the records of the learned court below. Sent down the lower court records immediately.