Judgment D.N. Upadhyay, J. This Civil Revision has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner Smt. Chinta Singh against the judgment and decree dated 8th May, 2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Dhanbad in connection with Title (Eviction) Suit No. 41/2006 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party has been decreed on contest without cost and the petitioner-defendant has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises described in the schedule of the plaint within three months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff shall take legal and suitable steps. 2. The case of the plaintiff in the court-below was that the plaintiff is owner of suit premises which was purchased by him in public auction from the Housing Board, Hirapur, Dhanbad. It is commercial plot no. K-33 area measuring 4'3”x12' 6”. Since the plaintiff could not able to start his own business, he had let out the said shop premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.850/- to be paid by the first week of coming month according to English Calender. Tenancy was created for 11 months subject to further extension for three years, if the parties agree to the conditions imposed. Agreement dated 7.09.2003 was prepared and signed by the parties in presence of the witnesses and the defendant deposited a sum of Rs.42,000/- with the plaintiff with an understanding that Rs.30,000/- will be remained as security money and Rs.12,000/- would be proportionately adjusted in the monthly rent. It was further agreed that the defendant shall pay Rs.500/- per month as monthly rent and balance of Rs.350/- shall be adjusted from the deposit of Rs.12,000/-. Parties have agreed for enhancement of 5% on the monthly rent, if the period of tenancy is renewed for further 11 months. After execution of the agreement suit premises was occupied by the defendant and he had started paying rent @ 500/- per month and balance rent of Rs. 350/- was adjusted towards advance of Rs.12,000/-. After expiry of period of 11 month, the tenancy, with the consent of both the parties stood renewed for further 11 months subject to maximum period of three years from the previous agreement dated 07.09.2003 and in this agreement dated 9.9.2004 again tenancy for 11 months was created on the monthly rent of Rs.893/-. After expiry of period of 11 month, the tenancy, with the consent of both the parties stood renewed for further 11 months subject to maximum period of three years from the previous agreement dated 07.09.2003 and in this agreement dated 9.9.2004 again tenancy for 11 months was created on the monthly rent of Rs.893/-. Lastly on 08.07.2006, the tenancy was terminated and the plaintiff requested the defendant to give vacant possession of the suit premises and legal notice was also served. The defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises within August, 2006 but it was not complied with and the plaintiff had stopped receiving rent after expiry of the period of tenancy. It was proposed by the plaintiff that he is ready to refund the security money of Rs.30,000/- on vacation of the suit premises. The plaintiff further made out a case that he is a retired engineer and he wants to establish his own business in the suit premises and, therefore, demised premise is required for his personal use and necessity. That cause of action for filing the suit arose on 24.05.2006 and 08.07.2006 and on subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of the Court, the suit is valued at Rs.11256/-being 12 months rent @ 938/-per month and accordingly ad valorem court fee has been paid. The plaintiff has brought the suit for evicting the defendant from the tenanted premises under Section 11 (1) (c) and Section 11 (1) (e) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement stating therein that no cause of action for the suit ever arose. The defendant has admitted that the tenancy agreement was created for three years but so far personal necessity of the plaintiff for starting his own business is concerned, it is contended that he is an old man without having experience of his own business. The suit has been filed only to harass the defendant with ill-motive. Further case of the defendant is that no agreement has been prepared on 7.09.2003 and the suit filed is premature on the point of fixed period of tenancy. The suit has been filed only to harass the defendant with ill-motive. Further case of the defendant is that no agreement has been prepared on 7.09.2003 and the suit filed is premature on the point of fixed period of tenancy. Further case of the defendant is that the plaintiff along with Dharmendra Palit had taken Rs.84,000/- as salami and both of them have showed a piece of land to the defendant stating that both the plaintiff and Dharmendra Palit are the joint owner of land in question and they amalgamated their land with each other and at the cost of defendant a shop was constructed thereon. The defendant has been doing his business in the premises under the name and style of S.G. Marble and Sanitary Wares and he has invested huge capital. He has regularly been paying rent to both the plaintiff and Dharmendra Palit. The defendant has further disputed identify of plot no. K-33 so question of eviction from plot no. K-33 does not arise at all. Further case of the defendant is that she used to pay Rs.1,700/- per month to both the plaintiff and Dharmendra Palit and they distribute the amount between them. 4. It is submitted that there are two agreements, one executed by plaintiff and another executed by Dharmendra Palit for one and same shop and each of them had taken Rs.30,000/- as security deposit. The tenancy has been extended by Dharmendra Palit for another one year i.e. up-to 30th June, 2007 executed on 3.11.2006 @ 1280/- per month for the shop K-32. According to the defendant, the plaintiff and Dharmendra Palit have amalgamated their portion of shop i.e. K-32 and K-33 with each other and made it one shop room total area measuring 25 Sq. feet. Dharmendra Palit has been receiving rent whereas the plaintiff has refused to accept but the fact remain that he has received huge amount as advance. 5. The defendant cannot be asked to vacate the suit premises at the wish of the plaintiff. He will have to prove that the premises is required in good faith for his bona fide need. On the basis of pleadings, leaned court-below has framed the following issues:- i. Whether the suit is maintainable ? ii. Whether the suit premises was let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. He will have to prove that the premises is required in good faith for his bona fide need. On the basis of pleadings, leaned court-below has framed the following issues:- i. Whether the suit is maintainable ? ii. Whether the suit premises was let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 850 (Rupees Eight Hundred Fifty) only for which the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 42,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only with the plaintiff as security money ? iii. Whether the defendant has amalgamated the suit premises with another room by removing the middle wall ? iv. Whether the tenancy has automatically come to an end on 8.7.2006 and the plaintiff requested the defendant to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises ? v. Whether the plaintiff needs the suit premises for his personal use ? vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed by him ? vii. Whether partial eviction will satisfy the requirement of the land lord ? 6. It is admitted that plaintiff has refused to receive the rent tendered by the defendant and, therefore, the defendant has not paid the rent after expiry of the tenancy agreement. It was submitted that the defendant is always ready to pay the rent and she has requested repeatedly to the plaintiff to accept the rent. 7. The plaintiff has examined altogether six witnesses in support of his case, such as P.W. 1 Dharmendra Palit, P.W. 2 Ram Chandra Agarwal, P.W.3 Rajesh Kishry, P.W. 4 Yogendra Prasad Keshry the plaintiff, P.W. 5 Balram Prasad Sharma (formal witness) and P.W. 6 Yudhisthir Prasad Sharma (formal witness). The plaintiff has also adduced the documentary evidence in support of his case, such as, Ext. 1 is the signature of Rajesh Keshry on agreement dated 7.9.2003; Ext. 2 is an agreement dated 7.9.2003; Ext. 2/a is signature of Yudhisthir Prasad Keshri, Chinta Singh and Dharmendra Palit on agreement dated 9.9.04; Ext. 3 is carbon copy of advocate notice dated 24.5.2006; Ext. 4 is carbon copy of letter dated 27.5.2002. The defendant has also produced and examined altogether eight witnesses in support of her case, such as, D.W. 1 Jai Prakash Singh, D.W. 2 Lav Kumar Singh; D.W.3 Vijay Rajwar, D.W.4 Bhola Rajwar, D.W.5 Sikandar Alam, D.W.6 Zakir Ansari, D.W.7 Ganesh Prasad and D.W.8 Shashi Bhushan Singh. 4 is carbon copy of letter dated 27.5.2002. The defendant has also produced and examined altogether eight witnesses in support of her case, such as, D.W. 1 Jai Prakash Singh, D.W. 2 Lav Kumar Singh; D.W.3 Vijay Rajwar, D.W.4 Bhola Rajwar, D.W.5 Sikandar Alam, D.W.6 Zakir Ansari, D.W.7 Ganesh Prasad and D.W.8 Shashi Bhushan Singh. The defendant has also adduced documentary evidence in support of her claim, such as, Ext. A which is the carbon copy of agreement dated 7.9.2003 and Ext. B is money receipt. 8. The petitioner-defendant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that suit filed by the appellant under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is premature. The agreement was executed on 7.9.2003 for three years but the suit has been filed on 2.9.2006 creating cause of action as on 8.7.2006 and on subsequent dates, the learned Civil Judge has elaborately discussed the aforesaid issue no.4 in para 7 of the judgment. The tenancy created on 7.9.2003 for 11 months has not been disputed by the petitioner and he has filed carbon copy of said agreement which has been marked Ext. A. After expiry of said agreement another agreement dated 9.9.2004 was executed subject to condition of renewal for further 11 months maximum to the extent of 3 years from the date from which the tenancy was first created i.e. on 7.9.2003. After calculating the tenancy for 11 months from 9.9.2004 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2006 the date would be 8.7.2006 and, therefore, the tenancy which was created between the parties on three term each for 11 months finally terminated on 8.7.2006 and thereafter the suit was filed for evicting the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge has discussed the evidence adduced from both sides and the documents marked exhibits. In this context important point is admission of the petitioner with regard to the tenancy created on 7.9.2003 for 11 months to be renewed for further 11 months and again for further 11 months. Further admission of the petitioner is that whatever the date may be on which the aforesaid tenancy was terminated but after termination of said tenancy he has not paid rent for subsequent months to the plaintiff, therefore, admittedly he has become defaulter too. Even during pendency of this suit, he did not file any petition for deposit of rent in the Court. 9. Even during pendency of this suit, he did not file any petition for deposit of rent in the Court. 9. The another important point in this case is that the defendant did not appear for adducing evidence and therefore the contention made by her in the written statement stands unsubstantiated. The evidence of other witnesses may be for the purpose of corroboration but the fact remain that non-examination of defendant suggest that contention made in the written statement has not been substantiated by her. 10. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Trial Court on this issue needs no interference. 11. The next point which the petitioner has raised is a ground for personal necessity i.e. Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Leave, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 12. Learned Counsel has cited the judgment reported in 1996 (2) P.L.J.R. page 737 paragraph 24 & 25. It was submitted, there is much difference between the desire and the need. Merely, the desire of the plaintiff to open up a business in the shop room would not satisfy the need as contemplated under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. It is the bounden duty of the Court to determine at the first instance as to the reasonable requirement of the premises for opening up the business and such determination must be objectively done and not on the basis of ipse dixit or mere desire. On this point learned Counsel has further referred the judgment reported in 1998 (3) P.L.J.R. page 541 para 9, 10, 11, 1998 (2) P.L.J.R. page 357 para 13. 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-plaintiff has referred judgment reported in 2011 (2) J.L.J.R. page 127 para 14 and 18. It is pointed out that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner-defendant has been dealt with by this Court in para 14. It was submitted that so far bona fide requirement of the suit premises for personal necessity of the landlord is concerned, that can be discussed and distinguished from the facts available in each case. In the present case the shop in question was purchased by the plaintiff in an auction sale in the year 2003. At that point of time, he was not in a position to start business immediately and, therefore, the shop was given to the defendant on rent. In the present case the shop in question was purchased by the plaintiff in an auction sale in the year 2003. At that point of time, he was not in a position to start business immediately and, therefore, the shop was given to the defendant on rent. The status of plaintiff is not disputed that he is a retired engineer and he does not have independent source of income. He has made up his mind to start a business in the suit premises that is certainly a bona fide need for him to occupy the suit premises. 14. The defendant has failed to bring on record that the plaintiff is having any other option to start with business in any other premises. It is always not necessary to disclose the nature of the business, capital to be invested therein as well as experience. The learned Trial Court has elaborately discussed this issue in the impugned judgment. 15. After considering the bona fide need of the plaintiff the Court has also taken note of the area of suit premises which is 12’ 6” x 4’ 3” and such smaller space cannot be considered for partial eviction and that will not serve the purpose of either the landlord or the tenant. So this aspect was also taken note of by the Trial Court. 16. I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision, the same stands dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the court-below is hereby upheld. Revision dismissed.