Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Act) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the landlord-respondent required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation by opening a shop for sale of seeds and vegetables. The landlord-respondent filed an ejectment petition on various grounds as envisaged by Section 13 of the Act which included the ground of personal necessity by occupying the shop for his own use for setting his two sons and the arrears of rent. The Rent Controller after detailed consideration of evidence has recorded the conclusion that the landlord-respondent alongwith his sons needed the shops in dispute to run the business of seeds and vegetables. It has further been found that the landlord-respondent is agriculturist. He has been sowing and selling vegetable crops. It has been proved on record that the landlord-respondent has two sons namely Mohinder aged 30 years and Harpreet aged 28 years respectively who are unemployed and both the sons wanted to start business of seeds and vegetables in the shops in dispute which are located in commercial as well as residential locality. The residence of the landlord-respondent is on the first floor and the shops on the ground floors have been rented out to the tenant-petitioner. It has also been proved on record that the landlord-respondent has not been occupying any building in the urban area of Patiala except the first floor of the demised premises which is used for residential purposes. It has also been found that he has not vacated any building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. 2. The argument of the tenant-petitioner that the landlord-respondent is an agriculturist along with his sons and is well settled in business has been rejected by the Courts below holding that the availability of 4-1/2 acres agricultural land would not debar the landlord-respondent from opening the seed and vegetables business in the demised shops. The view of the Appellate authority on the aforementioned issue reads as under: "It cannot be said that 4-1/2 acres of land is sufficient to maintain the family of the landlord and his two sons and after all the property is purchased by the landlord for his use and for the use of the family. The view of the Appellate authority on the aforementioned issue reads as under: "It cannot be said that 4-1/2 acres of land is sufficient to maintain the family of the landlord and his two sons and after all the property is purchased by the landlord for his use and for the use of the family. The property was not required by the landlord and the possession of the same was handed over to the mortgagor. Now the landlord has two grown up sons and now a days it is the biggest problem for a man to settle his sons more so when they are not so qualified. From the statement of the landlord, it is clear that one of the son is 6th passed and the other has studied upto 10th class. The said qualification is not sufficient to get a job and the finding of the learned Rent Controller in this regard does not require any interference." 3. Both the Courts have also rejected the plea that the landlord-respondent had filed a suit earlier where no grounds of personal necessity was pleaded nor ground of bonafide need by the landlord was taken, by observing that there was no occasion in the aforementioned litigation to plead such a ground as the suit filed by the landlord-respondent was simply for possession which was dismissed by recording the finding that the tenant-petitioner was in possession in his capacity as a tenant. The Appellate Court also rejected the contention that it was a mere wish of the landlord-respondent and there was no bonafide need. The observation of the Appellate Authority in this regard reads as under:- "There is no dispute to the proposition of law that the mere wish of the landlord is not sufficient but where the bonafide necessity is proved, in that case, the eviction order could be passed on the basis of bonafide personal necessity. In the present case the landlord has been able to prove the bonafide personal necessity for carrying on his business and for setting his sons. Authority "Ram Dass Mahajan of Chandigarh V/s. Braham Bhusnan" case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case, the landlord was not occupying the vacant portion of the property in his possession. in the present case there is no vacant portion of the building. Authority "Ram Dass Mahajan of Chandigarh V/s. Braham Bhusnan" case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case, the landlord was not occupying the vacant portion of the property in his possession. in the present case there is no vacant portion of the building. Authority "Ravinder Kumar V/s. Gian Chanas case (supra) is also distinguishable as in that case, the bonafide personal necessity was not held to be proved. Authority "Pritam Singh V/s. Virender Kumar Bhalla s case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case the personal necessity was not proved. Authority "Shabir Ahmad V/s. Sham Lal and Ors." case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case, commercial building was required for the purpose of residential. In the present case, the commercial building is being vacated for the purpose of carrying on business i.e. for commercial purpose. In the authority "Raghunath G. Panhale V/s. Chaganlal Sunderji and Co." case (supra), it has been held that where there is a reasonable and bonafide requirement, in that case eviction order should be passed. Similar view was taken in the authorities "Kewal Krishan V/s. Amrik Singh", Harbilas Rai Bansal V/s. The State of Punjab" and "G.C. Kapoor V/s. Nand Kumar Bhasin and Ors., (supra) So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the landlord has bonafide personal necessity, in that case the eviction order can be passed in respect of one shop is concerned, that submission is without any substance. The size of the shops is very small and as such one shop is not sufficient for the landlord and his two sons to carry on the business. Moreover the said case has not been set up by the appellant in the written reply and as such this type of case cannot be set up for the first time in the appeal." 4 Mr. D.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the necessity of the landlord-respondent can not be considered to be bonafide as he has sufficient land which is cultivated by him. He is well settled in his agriculture profession. He has maintained that the plea of personal necessity raised by landlord-respondent should be considered as a mere wish. Learned counsel has further argued that for two separate adjoining shops rent @ Rs. 250/- each is fixed which in fact would be two separate tenancies. He is well settled in his agriculture profession. He has maintained that the plea of personal necessity raised by landlord-respondent should be considered as a mere wish. Learned counsel has further argued that for two separate adjoining shops rent @ Rs. 250/- each is fixed which in fact would be two separate tenancies. Accordingly, it has been submitted that two separate ejectment petitions were required to be filed. 5. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the counsel and am of the view that the same are without any merit. On the basis of over-whelming evidence brought on record both the Courts below have concurrently found that the landlord-respondent required the demised shops for his personal bonafide need. It has been found that the landlord-respondent has sufficient knowledge of seed and vegetables. In fact the tenant-petitioner has admitted that the landlord-respondent sells the vegetables in Sabji Mandi, which would be complementary, if he sells the same at his own shop situated on the ground floor whereas he lives on the first floor. The need is bonafide and reasonable. It is well settled that the need of the landlord would include the need of his family members like the sons, daughters and daughter-in-law etc. For the aforementioned proposition, reliance can be placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta V/s. Mahesh Chand Gupta, , Siddalingamma V/s. Mamtha Shenoy, and Joginder Pal V/s. Naval Kishore Behal, . 6. The argument that two separate petitions in respect of two separate tenancies were required to be filed, has failed to impress me because for the necessity of occupying both the shops by the same landlord one petition is not barred which are rented out to the same tenant. The cause of action is similar in respect of both the shops and no prejudice has been caused to the case of the tenant-petitioner. Moreover, no such objection was raised before the two Courts and it is impermissible to be raised for the first time before this Court. Such a question is at best a mixed question of law and fact. The prejudice suffered by tenant has to be proved. Therefore, there is no merit in the aforementioned contention and the same is rejected. 7. Such a question is at best a mixed question of law and fact. The prejudice suffered by tenant has to be proved. Therefore, there is no merit in the aforementioned contention and the same is rejected. 7. The other submission that the tenant-petitioner alongwith his two sons is well settled in the vocation of vegetable and agriculture farming and therefore, there is no bonafide need to occupy the shops is also without merit because 4-1/2 acres of land cannot be considered sufficient in the present times for generating sufficient income. Even if some more land is in possession of the landlord-respondent in his capacity as a mortgagee the same would not constitute a basis for defeating the prayer based on bonafide and reasonable need in respect of both the sons of the landlord-petitioner, who are admittedly unemployed, the illiteracy of the sons to shift to business of selling vegetable and seeds would also not constitute a ground for declining the prayer of the landlord-petitioner himself that he has been selling his vegetables in Sabji Mandi. A person involved in agricultural and vegetable operations is likely to be familiar with the seeds and of course vegetables. They can easily sell those items in retail at the shop. Therefore, there is no merit in the aforementioned contention raised by the learned counsel and ! have no hesitation to reject the same. No other point has been raised. 8. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.