Judgment ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned District judge, Jalna in Rent Appeal No. 22/88 whereby he has allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner setting aside the decree for eviction dated 1/12/88 passed by Rent Controller at Jalna in file No. 94/arc/cr/2. ( 2 ) PRESENT petitioner had filed eviction proceedings before Rent Controller at jalna claiming decree for eviction. One mangaldas was the original tenant in the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 30/- subsequently rent was increased to Rs. 50/- p. m. The petitioner landlord came with a case that the house in question was bequeathed to him by will deed dated 25/8/82. Said house consists of ground floor as well as first floor. The ground floor was being used for running shop and the first floor which consists of 2 rooms was being used by the landlord for his residence. It has been pleaded that the family of the landlord consists of his wife, two daughters and his mother-in-law. Two rooms at the first floor wherein the landlord was staying are not sufficient for their residence. On that pleading landlord filed proceeding for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. ( 3 ) THE respondents had filed their written statement contesting the claim of the petitioner landlord. They have admitted their status of tenant. According to them, suit premises was in their occupation as tenant since more than 40 years. They have admitted their relations with the present petitioner as landlord and tenant. They have denied that the petitioner landlord required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his personal use and occupation. ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned Additional Rent controller, petitioner had examined himself and his brother. On behalf of respondents Dilip had examined himself and one more witness. During pendency of that proceeding, the site in possession of landlord was inspected by the additional Rent Controller and he noticed that in addition to the two rooms at the first floor', the landlord is possessing two more rooms at the second floor which were found newly constructed. On behalf of respondents Dilip had examined himself and one more witness. During pendency of that proceeding, the site in possession of landlord was inspected by the additional Rent Controller and he noticed that in addition to the two rooms at the first floor', the landlord is possessing two more rooms at the second floor which were found newly constructed. After considering the evidence, the Additional Rent Controller recorded finding that the premises in occupation of the landlord is insufficient for his residence and on that count, he has recorded finding that the need put forth by the petitioner landlord is reasonable and bonafide and passed decree for eviction against the tenant. Respondents being aggrieved with the said order preferred Rent Appeal before district Court. After hearing arguments of the parties and on scrutiny of evidence learned district Judge set aside the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller by recording finding that the landlord's need is not reasonable and bonafide requirement. The landlord being aggrieved with the said judgment of the learned District Judge preferred present revision application. ( 5 ) THE learned advocate Shri. Milind patil, holding for Shri. M. B. Sabnis, Advocate for petitioner made submission that the findings recorded by learned District Judge are perverse. Accordingly to him, the Additional Rent controller on inspection of premises in possession of the landlord and considering the evidence on record satisfied that the need of the landlord is reasonable and bonafide and to disturb the said finding and to come to different conclusion, learned District Judge did not record any reasons. So on this count, the finding recorded by learned District Judge needs to be set aside. He has made further submission that landlord is the best judge of his requirements and landlord cannot be compelled to accommodate himself in an inhabitable premises. Here in this case, two small rooms are in his possession. The premises in his possession are located in a commercial area and same is not suitable for residence. When such finding is recorded by the Rent controller, the District Judge without recording reasons disturbed the said findings and arrived at his own conclusion which are not based on any evidence, so the judgment and order dismissing the petition of landlord passed by district Judge needs to be set aside. When such finding is recorded by the Rent controller, the District Judge without recording reasons disturbed the said findings and arrived at his own conclusion which are not based on any evidence, so the judgment and order dismissing the petition of landlord passed by district Judge needs to be set aside. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned advocate Shri. Adgaonkar, Advocate holding for Shri. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent supports the order passed by learned District judge. It has been submitted on behalf of the tenant that the landlord suppressed the fact that two more additional rooms were in his possession at the second floor which were found in his possession at the time of inspection held by the Additional Rent Controller. So that fact alone was sufficient for the learned District judge to record finding that the need put forth by landlord is not reasonable and bonafide. It has been submitted that the tenant is a rikshaw driver and in case of eviction hardship will be caused to him. ( 7 ) THE petitioner claimed eviction of tenant solely on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. Under the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 15 of the Hyderabad houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, the landlord may file petition before the Rent controller for order directing tenant to deliver possession to the landlord if the landlord requires the tenanted premises for his own occupation and in case he has not occupied residential house of his own in the area. In the present case there is no dispute that the tenanted premises are residential premises and respondent tenants are staying there. So the only point for consideration is whether need put forth by petitioner landlord was a reasonable and bonafide requirement or whether it was his mere desire. The petitioner landlord as observed by the learned Rent Controller in his order, came with a case that ground floor which is in his possession is being used by him for the business and two rooms of the dimension 10' x 10' and 6' x 10' at the first floor of the premises were being used for his residence and the same are not sufficient for his use considering the members of his family. The facts are not disputed that his family consists of 5 members i. e. he himself, his wife, two daughters and his mother-in-law who was staying with them. It is also not disputed that ground floor in that building was being used by this landlord for his business purposes as a juice centre. So the case put forth by landlord as pleaded in his application is that only two rooms at the first floor were in his occupation and those were not sufficient for his residence. The tenants denied the said fact contending that the petitioner owns other houses in that area. When the petitioner entered in the witness box, he was also specific that only two rooms at the first floor are in his occupation for residence and same are not sufficient for residence of his family members. He also gave statement that those two rooms are not suitable as those are small in size. In examination-in-chief itself he tried to exaggerate his need stating that the rooms which are being used for residence are also being used for the business, but the very fact was not pleaded in his petition. His brother was examined before Additional Rent Controller who gave evidence that each one of the brothers are residing separate and the petitioner is having no other house for residence except the suit premises in possession of the tenant. That evidence is not too much relevant. The statement of respondent Dilip is about his tenancy where there is no dispute and his statement is nothing but denial of plaintiff's requirement. Though he gave statement that the petitioner landlord owns other house no evidence was produced in support of that contention. ( 8 ) THE perusal of order of the additional Rent Controller makes it clear that the Additional Rent Controller visited the premises and that time he noticed two additional rooms at the second floor in occupation of this landlord. In spite of that fact, the Rent controller recorded finding that the premises in possession of petitioner is not sufficient and suitable for his residence. At the time of inspection, two rooms on the first floor were not found used for residence which were in possession of landlord and which were being used for residence at time of filing of the petition. At the time of inspection, two rooms on the first floor were not found used for residence which were in possession of landlord and which were being used for residence at time of filing of the petition. During pendency of the petition, he appears to have constructed two additional rooms and shifted his residence from first floor to second floor. At the time of inspection the rooms at first floor were found used for commercial purposes i. e. to say for sitting of the customers. If these aspects are considered, the need put forth by the landlord cannot be said to be reasonable and bonafide. If the two rooms in his possession were not sufficient for his residence then there was no reason for him to use two rooms at first floor for commercial purposes and shift his residence in the two rooms at the second floor. It is not the case that this landlord claimed decree on the ground of his requirement for the business purposes on the ground that he intends to expand his business. He put forth need for residential purposes only. That need does not appear tobe reasonable considering the facts that the earlier two rooms which were in his occupation were also not being used by him for residence as observed by learned Rent Controller. So the ground put forth by him is mere desire to evict the tenant from tenanted premises and cannot be said to be reasonable and bonafide requirement. In spite of the fact that this landlord was possessing two additional rooms and the rooms which were in his occupation were not being used for his residence, the learned additional Rent Controller held that the need of the landlord is proved. So that finding of the rent Controller was not based on any evidence, so the learned District judge was justified to reverse the said finding. ( 9 ) THE learned advocate Shri. Patil made submission that first appellate Court though is having jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence, it cannot disturb the finding of the trial Court without recording reasons. According to him, no reasons have been recorded by the District Judge to disturb the findings recorded by learned Rent Controller. There is no merit in this submission made by shri. Patil. According to him, no reasons have been recorded by the District Judge to disturb the findings recorded by learned Rent Controller. There is no merit in this submission made by shri. Patil. The facts discussed above make it clear that though this landlord acquired possession of two more rooms for his residence, the Rent Controller recorded finding that the premises are not sufficient for landlord's residence. Though four rooms were in his possession, the landlord was not using two rooms on first floor for his residence. These facts are sufficient to record finding that the need of landlord is mere desire and it cannot be said to be a reasonable and bonafide requirement. The law is well settled that the landlord is a best judge of his requirement but at the same time it is also settled law that for claiming decree for possession on the ground of bonafide requirement, there must be some element of necessity and the need put forth if found to be mere desire cannot be said to be reasonable and bonafide requirement. The facts discussed to above in this case are clear that the need put forth by the present appellant is mere desire and the learned District Judge was justified to record that petitioner landlord failed to establish his need as bonafide and reasonable requirement. ( 10 ) IN the present case, the landlord- petitioner has failed to prove his requirement and finding on the issue of hardship does not arise at all. The facts in this case are not disputed that another house which the landlord owns is in occupation of the tenant. Attempt is made on behalf of the tenant to show that this landlord has constructed one house during pendency of this proceeding but for that no record is produced during the trial or during pendency of the appeal. Admittedly, the tenant is also having no other premises and he is rickshaw driver. The landlord is possessing four rooms is not a disputed fact. He runs a juice centre in the building in his occupation. So in case finding is required on the point of hardship it can be said that greater hardship will be to tenant. Admittedly, the tenant is also having no other premises and he is rickshaw driver. The landlord is possessing four rooms is not a disputed fact. He runs a juice centre in the building in his occupation. So in case finding is required on the point of hardship it can be said that greater hardship will be to tenant. ( 11 ) IN view of the circumstances discussed to above, the order passed by District judge setting aside the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller cannot be said to be illegal or perverse but the present petition is without any merit and the same needs to be dismissed. In the result. Civil Revision Application preferred by petitioner landlord is dismissed. Rule discharged. Parties are ordered to bear their own costs. Revision application dismissed.