JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. A double storied building named as "Kalidas Bhawan", situated at Bistupur, Jamshedpur belonged to Kalidas Biswas, Western portion of its ground floor consisting of two bed-rooms, kitchen, courtyard, latrine and bath-room was let- out to Hari Kishan P. Seth on monthly rental of Rs. 400/-, excluding electricity charges. 2. In September 1990 plaintiffs wife started business of running a Baby Creche in one of the rooms of the first floor thereof, which was the drawing- room. She was keeping children of working parent in the said creche from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Very soon she got good response and good number of parent offered their children for being kept and taken care of by plaintiffs wife and as such more space was required to accommodate newly coming children. Besides the said drawing-room, the plaintiff and his wife were using second room as their bed- room and third room in his occupation was being used as bed-room by his two daughters and fourth room was being used as study room by the daughters. There was no space left for entertaining guest and visitors. 3. According to plaintiff, for expansion of said business, ground floor of the Western side, which was in occupation of the defendant was most suitable. 4. Plaintiffs further case was that two small rooms of his out-house, which was under tenancy of M/s. Empire Industry were no doubt vacated during pendency of the suit, but the same was totally unfit to run Baby Creche business and as such 5" partition wall between those two rooms was dismantled and it was converted into a single room for keeping his Ambassador Car therein and iron gate was installed. 5. Defendant contended the suit. Relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, but plaintiffs alleged necessity was denied as plaintiff could have very suitably utilised his residential premises for such alleged purpose and defendant was not required to vacate the suit premises. Defendant did not specifically deny the aforesaid business being run by plaintiffs wife. 6. On the basis of evidence of PWs 1 to 4 as well as Exhibits 1 and 2 series, it was proved that Baby Creche business was, in fact, started by plaintiffs wife in August 1990 and it was expanding and at present there were altogether sixteen children in the said Baby Creche. 6. On the basis of evidence of PWs 1 to 4 as well as Exhibits 1 and 2 series, it was proved that Baby Creche business was, in fact, started by plaintiffs wife in August 1990 and it was expanding and at present there were altogether sixteen children in the said Baby Creche. Hence, plaintiffs necessity on account of expansion of the said business was proved. Portion of the house vacated by M/s. Empire Industry was not suitable to be used for the said purpose. Hence, plaintiff was in bona fide need of the suit premises to expand business of Baby Creche of his wife. 7. Mr. Roy, Counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance of a decision of the Apex Court in M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan, 1999 (1) SCC 439 , wherein it was held that even if requirement of additional space of landlord may be bona fide, but there being no genuine existing need for the same, the said requirement was not reasonable. In the said case looking to the size of the family of the landlord and the accommodation available to him in the building consisting of a substantial part of the ground floor and the whole of the first floor was found to be sufficient and, therefore, it was held that his need for any extra accommodation, for which the defendant could be displaced from the premises, was not genuine and bona fide. Ratio of the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the reason that here requirement is not of any extra accommodation for the family members, rather it was for the Baby Creche business which the plaintiffs wife was already running from before and secondly, it was found to be genuine existing need. 8. There were only two rooms in the suit premises and so plaintiffs requirement for expansion of Baby Creche business could not have been substantially satisfied, even if the defendant was partially evicted. 9. In the aforesaid circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. There is no merit in this Revision application. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs. 10. Revision application dismissed.