ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant -tenant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.5.2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/07, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by which plaintiff's suit for ejectment under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was decreed. 3. The respondent purchased the suit premises vide registered sale deed dated 18.11.1987 (Ex. P-1). The appellant was inducted as tenant at the rate of Rs. 85/- per month by the previous owner and is running school in the name and style of Miss Hill School. The respondent filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement, i.e., for the purpose of starting furniture workshop and showroom and for that purpose, he has no other alternative suitable accommodation in the city. The relation of landlord and tenant has been admitted by the appellant Mohan Kumar Mathur in his cross-examination. It is also not in dispute that rent of the suit premises is Rs. 85/- per month. It is averred by the appellant that respondent is a civil contractor and he is permanent resident of Shivpuri district and from there, he is managing his construction business. He is A-1 civil contractor and is having number of civil work and his need is not genuine. It is also averred that on 16.1.1995 vide Ex. D-1, he had issued a notice to the appellant for enhancement of rent from Rs. 85/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month. The suit was filed on 12.1.2001 just to enhance the rent. 4. The Courts below, after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, has held that notice (Ex. D-l) was issued on 16.1.1995, i.e., six years prior to the filing of the suit and said notice was issued because respondent-landlord is paying the property tax of Rs. 7,500/- per annum whereas the rent is only Rs. 85/- per month and, therefore, it cannot be said that suit has been filed just to enhance the rent of the suit premises. 7,500/- per annum whereas the rent is only Rs. 85/- per month and, therefore, it cannot be said that suit has been filed just to enhance the rent of the suit premises. In respect of bona fide need, the Courts below have- held that respondent wanted to expand and diversify his business and, therefore, he wants to open retail and wholesale furniture shop at Gwalior and for that purpose, he has no other alternative suitable accommodation in the city. 5. The respondent purchased the adjoining premises on 4.9.1985 and filed a suit for ejectment against Tirath Prasad Bhasin on the ground that he wants the suit accommodation for starting reception counter for the business of furniture. The said suit was decreed under section 12(1)(f) of the Act. The lower appellate Court after appreciating the judgment and decree of the trial Court upheld the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The said decree was upheld by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 405/05 (Ex. P-13). 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that part of the premises was vacated by Tirath Prasad Bhasin and said judgment will operate as res judicata. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in fact the plea that respondent wants to start furniture business or expanding its business at Gwalior is nothing but a sham and it was also pointed out that he is having construction business at Shivpuri and all the family members of the respondent is residing at Shivpuri and they all have established their business at Shivpuri and they have settled there, therefore, the need is not bona fide. 7. The respondent in his evidence very specifically stated that he wants to start retail and wholesale furniture business at Gwalior and for that purpose, he is not having any other suitable accommodation. The suit premises is required for diversion of existing business of the respondent. It is always the prerogative of the landlord to decide for what purpose he requires premises in question, it is not ground to say that landlord is already having his business in other cities and, therefore, such need is not a genuine need. It is not tenant who can dictate the terms to landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is not tenant who can dictate the terms to landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature and place of business. 8. I have gone through the findings of the trial Court as well as that of the lower appellate authority. The finding recorded by the appellate Court is neither perverse nor baseless. 9. The respondent-landlord has led evidence to show that he wants to start furniture business at Gwalior. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court examined the statement of P.W.1 and after considering his evidence, the lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and held that the need of the respondent-landlord to start a furniture business at Gwalior is bona fide and genuine. It was also held that it cannot be said that a person who is already having a business at one city cannot expand and diversify his business at any other place in the state or country. It is true that the landlord has his business over Shivpuri and if he wanted to expand and diversify his business at Gwalior, it cannot be said to be unnatural thereby denying eviction of the tenant from the premises in question. It is always prerogative of the landlord to choose the kind and place of business which has been found to be genuine by two Courts below. There is no perversity or illegality involved with. 10. Experience in the business is not a precondition under any statute. The respondent was not required to show that he had experience in running the furniture business. There is no law which provides for such a precondition. If the respondent has proved his bonafide requirement to evict the appellant for his own purpose, this Court may not, unless an appropriate case is made out, disturb the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court. 11. Hence, as a result of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Hence, as a result of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, since the appellant had been in possession for a long time and he is running Miss Hill School, I grant 1-1/2 years, time to the appellant tenant to deliver the possession of the suit premises to the respondent landlord, i.e., on or before 12.6.2009 subject to giving an undertaking that the appellant shall deliver vacant possession before the expiry of the period of one and half years and pay the rent to the landlord or deposit in the trial Court the arrears of rent as per the provisions of section 13 (1) of the Act, if any due, within eight weeks from today and continue to pay/ deposit the monthly rent on or before 15th of every month, in advance, during the said period. The above undertaking should be filed within a period of eight weeks from today before the trial Court. In default of compliance of any of the aforesaid conditions, it will be open to the respondent to execute this order as a decree and get vacant possession of the premises in question with the help of police. With the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.