JUDGMENT - Masodkar B.A. J.:- This petition filed by the tenant who took the open land On the monthly basis and there he has erected, as the Court below have found, a temporary structure, seeks to challenge the decree made by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal under section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter called “the Act”). After hearing the evidence, the Courts below have found that the need of the plaintiff to have the land reasonably and bona fide for erection of a new building is well justified. 2. These concurrent orders making the decree are questioned by the present petition. 3. Mr. Kotwal, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, strenuously argued that the reasoning of the Courts below with regard to the reasonable and bona fide requirement is vitiated because the plaintiff was, having several premises and he was trying to choose the open space on the ground of convenience and mere convenience was not equivalent to reasonable and bonafide requirement. He relied on the aspect that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and that he was having other open lands, including the agricultural fields, and other structures. He stated that the present land in the occupation of the tenant was being needed for the purpose of constructing premises so as to have accommodation for tethering of the cattle, keeping of the agricultural implements, storing of agricultural produce such as grass etc. Looking to the establishment of the plaintiff himself and the nearness of the open site which is just 60' to 70' from the residential premises of the plaintiff, the Courts belt)w have found that his claim to have this land for the purpose of having a new building is well established. There is also on record the permission to so build from the Gram Panchayat as per Ex. 79. It was also not in dispute that the plaintiff was in a position to erect a new building. These factors, in the submission of the learned counsel, merely showed a preference for the site and not a genuine or reasonable need. There is also on record the permission to so build from the Gram Panchayat as per Ex. 79. It was also not in dispute that the plaintiff was in a position to erect a new building. These factors, in the submission of the learned counsel, merely showed a preference for the site and not a genuine or reasonable need. Secondly, it was contended that in view of the provisions of section 25 (1) of the Act, an open land being in the possession of the tenant for the residential purpose cannot she granted for the purpose which is non-residential, in other words for the purpose of keeping the cattle and other agricultural uses. In the submission of the learned counsel this will be a change of user from residential to non-residential. Reliance is placed on the Single Judge's judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 2172 of 1957 decided on September 3, 1959 (by Tarkunde, J.) for the proposition that while the landlord seeks a decree under section 13(1)(g) of the Act, the prohibition imposes by section 25(1) of the Act is a relevant factor to find out whether such a decree could be made. 4. As far as the first aspect is concerned, the matter rests entirely in the realm of the appreciation of the evidence. It is indeed clear that the plaintiff is an agriculturist and has agricultural lands as well as cattle heads like 3 pairs of bu1locks, 3 she-buffaloes and about 10 or 12 heads of she-goats and the premises, i. e. the open land, is just situated close by to the residential house. His evidence on this aspect that he is in need to have separate erected premises close by the residential premises where he can keep the cattle heads as well as the agricultural produce for his purpose has been accepted. When the plaintiff happens to be an agriculturist possessing cattle heads and wants to erect premises for keeping the cattle and storing the agricultural produce like grass etc. as well as keeping the agricultural implements, it cannot be said that his need in this regard is altogether unreasonable or lacks bonafides. When the plaintiff happens to be an agriculturist possessing cattle heads and wants to erect premises for keeping the cattle and storing the agricultural produce like grass etc. as well as keeping the agricultural implements, it cannot be said that his need in this regard is altogether unreasonable or lacks bonafides. When the law speaks of reasonable and bona fide requirements of the landlord, it assumes in each case that the requirements are changed looking to the need of each and every individual and there is no static formula that can control the necessities that the landlord may set forth and establish. It is in each case a question of fact to be determined upon the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties. In the very nature of things, the landlord being an agriculturist can well claim that he needs to keep his cattle-heads as we1l as he needs the premises for keeping the agricultural implements and agricultural produce and such a need of such a landlord can well be a reasonable and bona fide one. The first aspect of the submission of the learned counsel is thus without any merit. 5. As far as the second submission of the learned counsel is concerned, the judgment on which reliance is placed does not at all assist the debate in the present case. That case was considering the requirements of the landlord under section 13(1)(g) of the Act with regard to the premises which belonged to the landlord and were given to the tenant and not the need of the land-lord to construct or erect a new building on the open space. It is not necessary, therefore, to consider the ratio of that judgment nor it is applicable to the decree under challenge in the present petition. 6. The learned counsel is not right in contending that section 25(1) of the Act puts an embargo upon the requirements of the landlord under section 13(1)(i) of the Act particularly when the premises contempted are the open land. When the open land is leased and the possession is sought for the purpose of construction, it is indeed difficult to see how the prohibition under section 25(1) of the Act would at a be attracted. When the open land is leased and the possession is sought for the purpose of construction, it is indeed difficult to see how the prohibition under section 25(1) of the Act would at a be attracted. Apart from that, the landlord being an agriculturist and wanting to erect a structure for his own cattle-heads and for keeping his own implements would not be within its mischief, for it cannot be said to be a non-residential purpose. The residential purpose as far as the agriculturist is concerned may very well include the keeping of his cattle and making provision for keeping of the agricultural produce. It is common experience that the residential premises of an agriculturist have such facilities wherein the cattle. heads have an accommodation as well as there is a reasonable premises kept for storing and keeping the agricultura1 implements as well as agricultural produce. That is an adjunct and 1' incidence to the residential use by an agriculturist of his own house. It is difficult, therefore, to accept the submission of the learned counsel that by seeking to erect a construction to house the cattle-heatls and making a provision for keeping the agricultural produce and the agricultural implements the landlord is changing the user from residential to non-residential and particularly when the statutory prohibitions are set up, the terms of such prohibition must be fully and completely made out before such an embargo can be said to operate upon the reasonable and bona fide requirements of the land-lord contemplated by section 13(1)(i) of the Act. 7. The submission on these aspects, therefore, of the learned counsel also must fail. 8. In the result, there is no merit in the present petition. Rule discharged with costs. Petition dismissed. -----