Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Munsif-ll, Munger, in Eviction suit No. 29/95. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the above mentioned eviction suit against the defendant-petitioners alleging the petitioners to be a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- according to english calendar month. The suit property alongwith others originally belonged to Ram Chandra Prasad father of the plaintiff and the defendant second set and the petitioners singe the days of their forefather were residing over the suit premises and doing business in one pf the rooms as a monthly tenant. After the death of the, father there was a partition suit amongst the co-sharers being Title Suit No. 192 of 1993 and a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the suit property fell into the share of the plaintiff. The petitioners continued as a tenant on a payment of Rs. 500/- per month and when the plaintiff got the suit property in his share rent was paid to him. According to the plaintiff he has no residence of his own and he was residing with his brother and there was pressure on him to vacate the brothers house and to have accommodation of his own as the suit premise has been alloted to him. Thus the eviction suit has been filed for personal necessity of residential accommodation of the plaintiff over the suit premises. It may be mentioned here that the suit premises consisted of several rooms, kitchen, latrine, verandah and in front side one of the room is being used as a shop by the defendant. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioners stating inter alia that the plaintiff has got no cause of action that the suit property is not at all necessary for the plaintiff that there are other vacant premises which the plaintiff can utilise for his accommodation. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. 4. After considering the evidence of both the parties learned Court below came to the finding that there is bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff and hence the suit premises being a most suitable one decree of eviction has been granted. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. 4. After considering the evidence of both the parties learned Court below came to the finding that there is bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff and hence the suit premises being a most suitable one decree of eviction has been granted. Partial eviction has also been considered and as it was stated by the defendant in his evidence he did not like to share with the plaintiff in the same shop house. Such partial eviction has also been rejected. There was plea before the Court below and also before this Court that there were vacant premises and the plaintiff is inducting new tenant on those vacant premises even during the pendency of the suit also and, as such, it could be found that the plaintiff was bent upon evicting the defendant- petitioners, although his personal necessity could be satisfied on those vacant premises. Affidavit to that effect has been denied. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that if necessary he can get affidavit filed by the tenant themselves regarding the vacating of the premises and the new induction of tenants. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order it appears that the learned Munsif held that there is personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff-opposite party for getting recovery of possession of the suit premises for the purpose of his residential accommodation and also for business purposes. It could be found on perusal of the plaint that the personal necessity was pressed by the plaintiff only for his residential accommodation as it was stated that after the suit building was allotted in his share he wanted the same for his personal accommodation as not a word of business has been stated towards the cause for personal necessity but during the course of evidence it has been stated so. But then also nothing specific has been stated as to what business the plaintiff wants to start when it could be found that he has got already a shop in another house. Thus the personal necessity in respect of business was not in the plaint and hence such unspecified word of business by the plaintiff ought not to have been construed within the purview of personal necessity of the plaintiff in granting eviction decree against the defendant-petitioners. Thus the personal necessity in respect of business was not in the plaint and hence such unspecified word of business by the plaintiff ought not to have been construed within the purview of personal necessity of the plaintiff in granting eviction decree against the defendant-petitioners. There is also confusing evidence by both the parties regarding vacant shop house by other tenants and induction of new tenants during the pendency of the suit. That point has not been considered by the learned trial court in its proper perspective in the judgment itself. But it appears from the affidavit and counter affidavit filed before this Court that same allegation and counter allegations still remained there. 5. Regarding partial eviction also the learned court below rejected the same only on the ground that there was a stray statement by the defendant to the effect that he would not like to share the suit premises with the plaintiff. It appears from the evidence that the plaintiffs wife is dead but he has got two or three children. The suit premises consists of several rooms and whether two family can be accommodated or not has not been considered by the learned Court below while considering the issue of partial eviction. Defendant-petitioners before this Court has submitted that he would have no objection if proper accommodation is made to both the parties in the suit premises. Moreover, it appears that the need of the plaintiff for residence was definitely there because he had already come out from his brothers family and is accommodating himself in another room and if one room were to justify for this accommodation or not is a matter to be considered by the Court below, on appreciation of evidence in the matter. On perusal of the impugned judgment I find that issue of personal necessity and of partial eviction had been considered casually by the court below without going into the deep in it. Much stress was given regarding business of the plaintiff but nowhere in the plaint there was any plea of business by the plaintiff and even if such business is there for the purpose of eviction as a personal necessity then also such business remains a vague one as no-where it has been specifically stated as to what business the plaintiff wants to start. The landlord cannot have any unfettered right to get the eviction on the simple plea of personal necessity. Desire and wish cannot take place the bonafide and genuineness of personal necessity. For the purpose of eviction on the ground of personal necessity it must be held before grant of decree to the effect that such necessity is bonafide, real non-imaginary and more than wish or desire. But it appears that the learned court below has not approached the case in its proper perspective for consideration of personal need. But when the plaintiff has got no personal accommodation of his own then perhaps he might have a bonafide need for personal accommodation but how many rooms would cater his need has also not been considered. In that way the impugned judgment his hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the court below for considering the matter afresh both on point of bonafide of personal necessity and of partial eviction in the light of the observations made above. If necessary party may also be given further opportunity to adduce more evidence on those two points. 6. The revision petition is thus, allowed. The lower Court records are hereby directed to be despatched immediately to the Court below and it is directed that the learned Munsif shall dispose of the eviction suit within four months next from the date of receipt of the lower court records giving opportunities to the parties as mentioned above but without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and if the defendant-petitioner takes any dilatory tactics the learned Munsif shall be at liberty to proceed according to law to maintain the time framed.