Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Hans Raj Malik (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sonepat, dated 21.3.1994 and the learned Appellate Authority, Sonepat, dated 5.6.1997. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction and the order was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority. 2. The relevant facts are that petitioner Hans Raj Malik is the landlord of the premises in question. A part of it has been let to the respondent. The petitioner seeks eviction of the respondent on the ground that he has retired and bona fide requires the property. Most of his relatives are residing in Sonepat. They have persuaded him to shift to Sonepat. 3. The respondent contested the eviction petition. According to the respondent, the petitioner is residing at Chandigarh. He has built his own house at that place. He is a widower. He has got a daughter who is married. She is also settled at Chandigarh. The real intention to get the premises vacated was to sell the house at Sonepat. The respondent further pleaded that the petitioner is a retired Tehsildar. He is using undesirable tactics to get the house vacated. He has also got registered a false First Information Report. He has been writing threatening letters to the respondent. It was denied that the petitioner has any relative at Sonepat. 4. The other grounds of eviction had never been pressed and, therefore, it becomes unnecessary to make reference of the same. 5. The learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner has failed to establish that he bona fide requires the suit premises and the petition was dismissed. As referred to above, the findings of the learned Rent Controller found favour with the learned Appellate Authority. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner does not own any house in Panchkula or at Chandigarh. He intends to shift to Sonepat and live in his own house because some of his relatives persuaded him to live near his kith and kin. He explained that no sale deed took place and the petitioner even returned the earnest money. Thus, adverse inference should not be drawn on that account. 7. On close scrutiny, it is patent that the contention of the learned petitioners counsel cannot be accepted. He explained that no sale deed took place and the petitioner even returned the earnest money. Thus, adverse inference should not be drawn on that account. 7. On close scrutiny, it is patent that the contention of the learned petitioners counsel cannot be accepted. It is true that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has to choose the premises but it is not mere wish. There has to be an element of requirement before the premises can be vacated on the said ground. The moment the landlord states that the requires the premises does not ipso facto bring the order of eviction. The statement of facts and the evidence has to be scrutinized before the Controller or the Authority therein can arrive at a conclusion as to if the landlord requires the premises in question or not. 8. In the present case, the premises in question were let in the year 1984. That is the year when the petitioner retired. He knew about his year of retirement or the age of superannuation. Still he had chosen to let the premises in dispute to the respondent. It reflects that the petitioner, indeed, had little intention of settling in his own house at Sonepat. 9. Admittedly, he is residing presently at Panchkula and his daughter is also living at Panchkula. She is the nearest relative of the petitioner. The fact that he does not intend to live at Sonepat gets fortification from other events brought on the record. In the year 1987, he had entered into an agreement of sale with another tenant in the premises in question. It is different matter that the transaction did not mature. The fact remains that the petitioner was interested in sale of the property rather than living in the said premises. 10. The same conclusion gets support from the letter of the petitioner Exhibit A-2. He had been threatening the respondent for vacation rather than insisting on his personal requirement. In fact, while he states that his relatives are persuading him to settle at Sonepat, no said relation is forthcoming to support. It is anybodys guess as to who they are. The fact asserted, thus, is not established. On totality of the facts, it is apparent that the petitioner does not bona fide require the suit premises. There is no ground to interfere in the concurrent (sic). 11. It is anybodys guess as to who they are. The fact asserted, thus, is not established. On totality of the facts, it is apparent that the petitioner does not bona fide require the suit premises. There is no ground to interfere in the concurrent (sic). 11. The revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.