JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1. 2. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Munsif-II, Civil Court, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 52 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 has been decreed and defendant/petitioner has been directed to vacate the suit premises within three months. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiff/opposite party has filed title suit bearing Title Eviction Suit No. 52 of 2006 stating therein that he is the co-owner-landlord of the suit premises described in Schedule-A of the Plaint and had further stated that the defendant/petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises on month to month basis situated near Main Road, Ranchi. It is alleged that the defendant/petitioner is running a business in the name and style of “Exide Power Point” and “M/s New Battery Centre” in his name and in the name of his wife (defendant no. 2) and pay rent @ Rs. 350/- as fixed by the Rent Controller 20 years ago. Till then, the actual contractual rent was Rs. 130/- per month. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation for opening a business of dealer for consumer items and electric and electronic gadgets such as Television Sets, Refrigerators, Washing Machines, Room Coolers, Air Conditioners, Fans etc. The plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 requested the defendant/petitioner to vacate the suit premises in view of his necessity, but the defendant flatly denied/refused to vacate the suit premises on 17 th /19 th April, 2006 respectively, rather started demanding Rs. 1.5 Lacs in consideration for vacating the suit premises. It is further alleged that the defendant has occupied the suit premises since more than 50 years. There are other tenants also under the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1, against whom eviction proceeding on different grounds have been initiated and pending before the competent civil court. The other two tenants have also vacated their respective tenanted premises, one shop which was vacated on mutual understanding is used by his elder son Rakesh Sarawgi for retail medicines shop, wherein younger son of the plaintiff is also engaged in assisting his brother. The other two tenants have also vacated their respective tenanted premises, one shop which was vacated on mutual understanding is used by his elder son Rakesh Sarawgi for retail medicines shop, wherein younger son of the plaintiff is also engaged in assisting his brother. The plaintiff requires the suit premises for establishing a business for his second son Uttam Sarawgi and other family members, who are sitting idle. 4. The present defendant no. 1/petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement on technical ground like non-joinder of necessary party, other co-sharers of the property are not being made party. Plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 is not sole owner of the suit premises and has no exclusive right to file the present suit. The portion of the property has been acquired by the State of Jharkhand for widening of road and for Sanik Board. The Plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 has no bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation or by his family members. The plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 has got several tenanted premises evicted on the northern portion of the land and had also widening the passage running through middle of his land so as to raise the commercial value of the property situated behind the suit premises. They further stated that the shop is situated in a premises consisting of more than 30 shops out of which 07 shops are vacant and are in possession of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 and his family members. Several eviction suits have been filed by the plaintiff on similar grounds being Eviction Suit Nos. 08 of 1987 to 11 of 1987. It is further pleaded that the defendant/petitioner is in occupation of the suit property since last 50 years and he has made huge investments of making reconstruction of the suit premises and alleges no other source of livelihood of the defendant except the suit premises. Therefore, in absence of bonafide need of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1, the suit ought to have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s second son namely, Uttam Kumar is engaged in medicine shop along with his elder brother and the shop has a huge sale, therefore, none of the brothers said to be unemployed and required any further shop. The suit of the plaintiff is malafide and the grounds for eviction is also not legally tenable and therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed. 5. The suit of the plaintiff is malafide and the grounds for eviction is also not legally tenable and therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed. 5. The learned trial court formulated the following issues for adjudication on the basis of respective pleadings of the parties:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action for the present suit ? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties ? (iv) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between them ? (v) Whether the plaintiff requires the suit property bonafidely for the use of his younger son for opening a separate business establishment ? (vi) Whether the partial eviction of the suit property will serve the purpose of the plaintiff or not ? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as claimed ? 6. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted fact. 7. The vital issue nos. (iv), (v) & (vii) have been decided in favour of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 with objective findings that the suit property is reasonably required for personal use and occupation of the plaintiff in order to get employment of their son and grandson and other family members. Partial eviction of the suit property is not serving necessity of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1, therefore, suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and also valuable admissions made by the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 himself and arrived at wrong conclusion. It is apparent from the pleadings as well as oral testimony of plaintiff witnesses that multiple eviction suits were instituted against different tenants of the plaintiff and 7-8 shops were vacated. There is no iota of evidence that necessity and purpose of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 cannot be fulfilled by 7-8 shops and admittedly both sons of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 were engaged in medicines shops of their own. There is no iota of evidence that necessity and purpose of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 cannot be fulfilled by 7-8 shops and admittedly both sons of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 were engaged in medicines shops of their own. The plaintiff himself admitted in his evidence at para-30, 31 & 33 about eviction of the other tenanted premises and came in possession of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1, but the learned trial court has miserably failed to take judicial notice of changed circumstances, under which, the need of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 can be fulfilled by way of eviction of other tenants, therefore, the plea of bonafide need for own use and occupation by the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 is absolutely unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and suit is liable to be dismissed. 9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram [1992 Supp (2) SCC 623] and in the case of Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal reported in 2001 (5) Supreme 100 wherein it has been held that the bonafide requirement must be in praesenti and mut be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Ratanlal Baid Vs. Sohanlal Saha reported in 1997 SCC OnLine Pat 598 , wherein it has been held that landlord needs to establish the fact that the occupation is not just desired, but required. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the defendant/petitioner and submitted that the learned trial court very wisely and aptly taken into consideration all aspects of the case of the plaintiff, who is now 75 years old and considerable property has been acquired by the State Government, which was also tenanted. The learned trial court arrived at genuine conclusion about the bonafide need of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 of the suit premises for his own use and occupation regarding employment of his son, grandson and other family members. The learned trial court arrived at genuine conclusion about the bonafide need of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 of the suit premises for his own use and occupation regarding employment of his son, grandson and other family members. The defendant/petitioner was residing on a meagre rent since more than 50 years over the suit premises and enjoying the suit premises, earning huge amount of money and is capable to set up his own business at another place. The plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 has not only asserted his desire about the personal necessity, but also proved the same to the hilt by adducing evidence. The defendant/petitioner has not been able to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 and has not pointed out any vulnerable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. There is no iota of evidence that the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 has inducted any other tenant over the vacated suit premises during pendency of this case, rather he has engaged his own sons and also developing other business of electronics. The plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 cannot be subjected to the desire of defendant- tenant/petitioner. There is no alternative to the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 to set up his own business at any other vacant place sufficient for his purpose. The plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 cannot be deprived from beneficial use of his own property by his own family members at the cost of tenants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is fit to be upheld and confirmed. This revision has no merit and fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for respective parties. 13. It is evident from the record that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between O.P. No. 1 and petitioner. The plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 has adduced his own evidence examining himself as P.W.-1 and consistently proved the contents of the plaint. He has also adduced documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-1: Notice dated 10.03.84, Exhibit-1/A : Notice dated 24.06.83 (with objection), Exhibit-1/B : Signature of defendant no. 1 and his brother, Exhibit- 2 : Signature on postal receipt with regard to notice (with objection), Exhibit-3 to 3/Q : Counterfoil of rent receipt and Exhibit-4 to 4/Q : Signature of defendant no. 1 at the back side of the counterfoil, which also fortifies the claim of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1. 1 and his brother, Exhibit- 2 : Signature on postal receipt with regard to notice (with objection), Exhibit-3 to 3/Q : Counterfoil of rent receipt and Exhibit-4 to 4/Q : Signature of defendant no. 1 at the back side of the counterfoil, which also fortifies the claim of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the bonafide need of the suit premises by the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 for his own use and occupation although plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 is owner of several shops and some of them were vacated due to necessity of widening the main road and some of the lands were acquired by the State Government, but the same does not affect the right of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 to take over possession of the tenanted premises allotted to the tenant/petitioner. The claim of the plaintiff/O.P. No. 1 about bonafide need has not been rebutted by the defendant/petitioner through any cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court requires no interference which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity by way of this revision. I do not find any merit in this revision, which stands dismissed. 14. Both parties shall bear their own cost. 15. Pending I.A, if any stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this order/judgment be sent to the court concerned.