KEWAL KISHAN Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 9.2.2010 by which he has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question on the ground that the respondent requires the same for his own personal need for setting up a business with his son.

(2.) ASSAILING the said finding, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the bona fide need as expressed by the respondent/landlord in his petition and which he has tried to fortify is not even remotely established. He has contended that the respondent/landlord is more than 70 years of age and at this stage he is not expected to set up any business. He contended that there is evidence on record to suggest that all throughout his life he has not set up any business venture and he has been either assisting his father, brother or his son. He further contended that the evidence does not conclusively point to the bona fide need of the respondent/landlord. It is thus the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any such evidence, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are erroneous and liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE contention which has been raised to off set the findings recorded in favour of the respondent/landlord regarding his bona fide need for the use and occupation of the building in question cannot be accepted. THE respondent has categorically stated that he is more than 70 years and is running a business with his son and he needs the premises for setting up his business venture. It is also on record that the respondent/landlord is a businessman of some standing having been involved in such activities since long. THErefore, if he wishes to either expand his business or set up a new venture, then such a thought process cannot be said to alien to the normal business conduct of a businessman habituated to business activities. It is settled principle of law that the landlord has every right to choose the premises in the eventuality of his having multi-fold ones to oust a tenant in order to satisfy his need. THE tenant cannot dictate his terms to the landlord. THE Supreme Court in Atma S.Brar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 42 has held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements.