Judgment S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-2-1987 in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1984. The judgment under challenge affirms the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 323 of 1979 dated 2/-6-1983 of IInd Joint Civil Judge, j. D. , Dhule. ( 2 ) THE proceedings are under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act ). The petitioners are original plaintiffs whereas respondents are original defendants. The suit property is C. T. S. No. 1893 and 1824 belonging to the petitioners. ( 3 ) IT is common ground that respondents are tenants of the ground floor premises which consists of three rooms, ota and godown. It appears that initially two rooms and godown was let out to the father of the respondents. The rent was fixed at Rs. 100/- per month. Then the third room was also let and monthly rent was increased to Rs. 160/ -. In April, 1979, respondent took one more room adjacent to his premises from one Dekhabhai and claimed tenancy over it. The rent of the said room was fixed at Rs. 50/- per month. Thus, the respondent became tenant of the whole premises at Rs. 210/- per month. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that respondents run a shop under the name of bhairulal Nandkishor and Company in the suit premises. ( 5 ) REGULAR Civil Suit No. 323 of 1979 was laid in the Court of Ilnd Joint civil Judge, Junior Division on 1/-8-1979 by the petitioners. The allegations in the plaint are that respondents have carried out permanent alterations in the suit premises by affixing doors at the brink of the ota and thus converted ota portion in a room. It was also alleged that respondents have damaged ceiling portion of the premises. In substance, petitioners invoked section 108 (O) of the Transfer of property Act, 1882. Another ground put forward was that respondents were in arrears of rent and education cess since 1-6-1967 at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month till 30-4-1979 and for additional room from 1-5-1979 at Rs. 50/- per month. This amount wasdemanded but respondents did not pay the same. Hence, a notice was issued but respondents forwarded only Rs. 4600/- and thus they are defaulters. 160/- per month till 30-4-1979 and for additional room from 1-5-1979 at Rs. 50/- per month. This amount wasdemanded but respondents did not pay the same. Hence, a notice was issued but respondents forwarded only Rs. 4600/- and thus they are defaulters. ( 6 ) IT was alleged that respondents are running business in the name of bangad Traders in Uday building bearing C. T. S. No. 4747 at Dhule. This Uday building is permanent construction and respondents can very well conduct their business from these premises. It was contended that the respondents are not in need of the suit premises for their business. Instead, they have inducted other persons in these premises and thus there is sub-letting and profiteering on their part. ( 7 ) IT was alleged that petitioner No. 1 Govardhandas was previously serving in Maharashtra Vegetables. His services were terminated on 1-1-1979. It was pleaded that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 want to run some business and for which they have no premises. They are in need of the premises for their business. It is alleged that southern portion of the suit property is in possession of petitioner No. 3 and he has a separate shop in the same. It is alleged that rest of the petitioners are not on cordial terms with Hukumchand, They want to start a separate business. ( 8 ) ON the aforesaid grounds, the relief of possession of the suit premises along with damages in lieu of rent was claimed by the petitioners. ( 9 ) RESPONDENTS appeared in response to the suit summons. They filed a written statement at Exhibit 25. They denied that petitioners have got no business of their own. It was also denied that respondents do not conduct any business in the suit premises. On the other hand, respondents are in possession of the suit premises since last 30 years as tenant and they deal as grain merchant and commission agent and Pakka Adtya in various commodities. It was specifically contended that respondents have total turnover of Rs. 2 crores and are having very prosperous business. After tracing the events leading to creation of tenancy rights in their favour, respondents denied that they have carried out any alterations or caused damage to the suit premises. They denied that they are defaulters inasmuch as rent upto date has been paid. 2 crores and are having very prosperous business. After tracing the events leading to creation of tenancy rights in their favour, respondents denied that they have carried out any alterations or caused damage to the suit premises. They denied that they are defaulters inasmuch as rent upto date has been paid. There was some adjustment pleaded about quantum of rent. It was contended that C. T. S. No. 4747 is located in residential area and there is no shop of foodgrains in the locality. It was denied that the respondents are carrying business from the same. It was contended that the premises (in C. T. S. 4747) are not suitable for business nor are the respondents carrying any business from the premises. The requirement of the petitioners was denied. It was contended that petitioners want to dispose of property C. T. S. 1824 after getting possession. The allegations of sub-letting were denied. ( 10 ) IT was contended that petitioners have more than sufficient premises in their possession. On the other hand, respondents are in need of the premises. They have acquired goodwill from the business conducted therein. They will be put to greater hardship in case of eviction. For all these reasons, it was submitted that the petitioners suit be dismissed with costs. ( 11 ) IN view of the pleadings, trial Court framed necessary issues vide exhibit 26. ( 12 ) INSOFAR as the findings of arrears of rent and default, permanent construction and sub-letting, petitioners are accepting the judgment and decree of the Courts below. They are not claiming eviction on these grounds. The only ground pressed is reasonable and bona fide requirement of the petitioners qua the suit premises. Arguments have been canvassed before me by learned Counsel for both sides only on this issue. All other grounds for eviction have thus been given up by the petitioners. ( 13 ) ON the point of reasonable and bona fide requirement in respect of the business premises, trial Court framed Issue No. 6. Issue No. 7 was with regard to hardship. Issue No. 6 was answered in the negative by holding that petitioners have failed to prove that they require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for personal occupation and for business. Issue No. 7 was with regard to hardship. Issue No. 6 was answered in the negative by holding that petitioners have failed to prove that they require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for personal occupation and for business. On the issue of hardship (Issue No. 7), the trial Court held that it does not survive but assuming it survives, greater hardship would be caused by passing a decree for eviction rather than by refusing to pass it. These findings of the trial Court are affirmed by the lowerappellate court. They survive for my consideration. ( 14 ) SHRI Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the Courts below have erred in recording a finding against the petitioners on the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement in respect of the suit premises. He submits that the findings are vitiated by error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as Courts below have approached the said issue by ignoring mandate of section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act. He submits that whenever need is put forward of such premises, then the Courts are required to consider as to whether the same is genuine, reasonable and bona fide. This aspect has to be considered on the touchstone of the requirement of the landlord. In other words, it is for the landlord to decide as to how he wants to conduct his business and he is sole judge of the same. It is not open for the tenant to suggest that the landlord can very well conduct his business from other premises or in some other manner or modify it suitably so as not to cause eviction of the tenant from business premises. ( 15 ) SHRI Agrawal submits that in the plaint, it has been specifically contended by the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 has been terminated from the services by M/s Maharashtra Vegetables. Therefore, petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 have to carry on some business. They have no place for doing so. They have contended that the relations between the petitioners No. 1 to 4 are not cordial. Even the wives are not getting along with each other. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are married. Petitioner No. 2 has one daughter. Petitioner No. 4 has stopped his education. Since four years he has no job. He also wants to do some business. They have contended that the relations between the petitioners No. 1 to 4 are not cordial. Even the wives are not getting along with each other. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are married. Petitioner No. 2 has one daughter. Petitioner No. 4 has stopped his education. Since four years he has no job. He also wants to do some business. Petitioner No. 2 has some experience in the business of commission agency, etc. Insofar as petitioner No. 3 Hukumchand is concerned, he has set up independent business from C. T. S. No. 1843 (front portion of southern side in the premises admeasuring 11 x 18) in the name and style of Gajanan and Company. It is an adat shop. The market licence is also standing in his name. Municipal records also depict only the name of petitioner No. 3. Thus, petitioner No. 3 Hukumchand has made arrangement for his shop and conducting a business therefrom. He has also managed a godown for himself. However, no arrangement has been made for any business premises or godown insofar as petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4. Since the needs of the family are increasing, it is necessary that petitioners to do some business and, for that purpose, they require the suit premises. According to Shri agrawal, this pleading is enough for the purpose of demonstrating reasonableness of the requirement. It is genuine and bona fide as well. It is pointed out additionally that respondents orally assured that suit premises would be vacated by them but no compliance was made of such assurance and thereupon notice dated 6-7-1979 was addressed terminating their tenancy rights. ( 16 ) IT is pointed out that the respondents are deliberately and with ulterior motives avoiding vacating the premises. They have premises at C. T. S. 005 (near prabhakar Talkies) admeasuring 14x15. It is in these circumstances that the premises were claimed. ( 17 ) SHRI Agrawal invites my attention to para 5 of the written statement where it is stated thus : the defendants state and submit that the defendants are in possession and occupation of the premises CTS No. 1843 and 1824/2 qua a tenant since about last 30 years. The defendant deal as grain merchants, commission agent and pakka adatiya as well in various commodities, such as oil cake, rice, wheat, jaggery, bajara, gram-dal, etc. The defendants have got total turnover of about Rs. The defendant deal as grain merchants, commission agent and pakka adatiya as well in various commodities, such as oil cake, rice, wheat, jaggery, bajara, gram-dal, etc. The defendants have got total turnover of about Rs. one to two crores per year, which evidences the huge extent of business and the corresponding need for the sufficient premises. The defendants have got very prosperous business and even the younger generation of defendants is likely to multiply the existing business. ( 18 ) IN para 13 of the written statement, paras 9. 10 and 11 are dealt with but there also it is not denied that property C. T. S. 4747 is belonging to the respondents. Insofar as para No. 12 of the plaint is concerned, the written statement proceeds to only deny the assertion and further statement that petitioners intend to dispose of premises C. T. S. 1824 after recoveringpossession from the respondents for a huge price. Respondents are raising an issue in this para about enhancement of rent and as to how petitioners have got more than sufficient premises in their possession. ( 19 ) SHRI Agrawal submits that apart from contending that the plea of alleged bona fide and reasonable requirement is only excuse for evicting the respondents, there is no denial of the averments contained in para 12 of the plaint. It is contended by respondents that previously substantial and sufficient portion was in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. It is contended that claim for bona fide and reasonable requirement is false, fictitious and frivolous. No additional premises are required is the last contention in this para of the written statement. ( 20 ) INVITING my attention to the pleadings, Shri Agrawal contended that neither is the requirement denied nor is it stated that it is not bona fide and reasonable. He submits that this being the state of pleadings, the Courts below could not have answered the issue in the negative. The findings are, therefore, vitiated by errors apparent on the face of record. It could also be safely termed as perverse.