Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority vide which appeal filed by the tenant-respondent against the order of eviction has been accepted. 2. Petitioners and proforma respondent No. 2. filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the respondent No. 1 from the rented premises bearing No. 12/491 comprised four rooms, verandah, kitchen, bath-room store, latrine etc. situated at Batra Colony, Sonepat. The case of the petitioners was that they were the landlord and respondent was the tenant in the rented premises @ Rs. 70/- per month since the year 1972. The house was rented out for residential purpose and that now he has ceased to occupy the house and he has shifted to his own house. The petitioner seeks ejectment of the respondent on the following grounds : "(i) That the respondent has not paid the rent since 1973 and thus he is liable to pay the arrears of rent for the last 3 years legally recoverable from him which have become due preceding the date of this application together with house tax @ 12% costs and interest as may be assessed by the Honble Court. (ii) That the applicant requires the said house for their own occupation as they are not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Sonepat and they have not vacated such building after the commencement of 1949 Act in the said Urban Area of Sonepat. The applicants were previously in service, but now the applicants No. 1 & 2 have already retired and therefore want to occupy their own house at Sonepat, where all their near and dear relatives are permanently settled and thus they also want to be with them at the place of their permanent residence, which they are legally and morally entitled especially after their retirement from service. (iii) That the respondent has to occupy the above said house as he has in his own possession a residential building subsequently acquired by him, but is un-necessarily retaining the possession of the said house for some ulterior motives." 3. The rate of rent and relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. Tender was made which was accepted so the ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed. The rate of rent and relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. Tender was made which was accepted so the ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the ground of ceased to occupy and contested the case on the ground of personal necessity. 4. The learned Rent Controller accepted the petition by observing that the petitioners were able to prove their personal bona fide and it was for the tenant to have prove the ulterior motive to get the house vacated. Thus, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that as no ulterior motive could be proved by the tenant the need has to be held to be bona fide. The learned Rent Controller also took the notice of Section 13(6) of the Rent Act to hold that in case the premises was not occupied the possession could be taken back by the tenant. 5. The respondent-tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding by observing as under : "18. The position of law cannot be disputed that landlord need not plead that why he required house as given in Girdhari Lal v. Siri Krishan and others, 1984 P.L.R. 434, but the facts of each case differ from other. In the case of Smt. Krishna v. Hardwari Lal, the landlord was office Superintendent, Artillary Records, Gaziabad in Uttar Pradesh and was going to retire within six months and, therefore, he applied for getting his residential house at Fazilka vacated from the tenant and then the necessary ejectment order was passed. In Harnam Singh v. Rakasha Rani and another, the landlord retired from Amritsar and wanted to shift to Ambala City in his own house and the ejectment order was passed. In Kuldip Singh v. Mrs. Parkash Chand and others also, it was a. case of retirement of the landlord from service and then to settle in his house at Ludhiana. In Mrs. Mohini Suraj Bhan v. Vinod Kumar Mittal, the landlady after death of her husband was residing in a rented house at Delhi and she wanted to shift to her own house at Chandigarh and therefore ejectment order was passed by the Honble Supreme Court. In Mrs. Mohini Suraj Bhan v. Vinod Kumar Mittal, the landlady after death of her husband was residing in a rented house at Delhi and she wanted to shift to her own house at Chandigarh and therefore ejectment order was passed by the Honble Supreme Court. In not a single case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the facts were identical as the landlord was proved to be owning two houses at two different places as is the present case. In order to assess the need of the landlord that he wanted to occupy the house atleast his bona fide are required to be ascertained. In the present case, applicant No. 1 is having a house at Chandigarh, applicant No. 2 is having a house at Gurgaon and applicant No. 3 a practising lawyer at Delhi is having his house in Hauz Khas, New Delhi and all the above said three cities are such where all present amenities of life in the houses in the form of sewarage, water-connection, light connection, telephone facility etc. are available. Applicants No. 1 and 2 have already retired. No male child of any of the applicants is settled at Sonepat that he could look after them. A daughter of Shri Vidya Bhushan reportedly married at Sonepat had shifted to America and where the applicant No. 2 had also recently gone and stayed. No other blood relations of the landlords is proved to be residing at Sonepat as AW2 Jagmohan deposed that son of Shri Vidya Rattan was married with his sister-in-law, Anil Kumar AW-3 deposed that his brother Jaipal was married with daughter of Shri Vidhya Bhushan and Hans Raj AW5 deposed that the landlords were the sons of his mothers sister. No doubt Hans Raj AW5 is proved to be the first cousins of the landlord but unless they had some joint business or other joint interest at Sonepat it could not be believed that the applicants could have any reason to change their residence from A class city to Sonepat C class city simply to enjoy the company of Hans Raj. 19. 19. Then all the landlords are stated to have received their education at Lahore which proved that they are accustomed to a particular standard of living, as they are presently living in A class cities Chandigarh, Delhi and Gurgaon and it could not be believed that the applicants who are bureaucrats and educationalist would like to live in a small house of 150 sq. yard dimensions at Sonepat and which house is not having any amenity of sewerage, flush or even water connection in it. 20. No doubt, as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent that in case of Smt. Shama Devi v. Shri W.N. Khanna and Shri Jetha Nand v. Shri Ram Chander and another based on Section 13(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 a safeguard is provided to the ejected tenant to seek restoration of possession if the landlord fails to occupy the building within the reasonable period, but the said safeguard is provided to the ejected tenant to seek restoration of possession if the landlord fails to occupy the building within the reasonable period, but the said safeguard did not mean arbitrary ejectment of the tenants as before the ejectment order is passed, it is certainly to be ascertained that whether the landlord bona fide required the building for their own occupation. The tenant need not prove the ulterior motive of the landlord as the motive could be any but first the bona fide requirement of the landlord is to be seen for vacation of the building. In the present case keeping in view the schooling of the landlords at Lahore, their high status in service as Shri Vidya Rattan had remained Head of Department in some University and the fact that they had retired much earlier than making this application for ejectment, that they were having houses in A class and metropolitan cities and their advanced stages, that they have neither ever lived at Sonepat and then no other male or female member of their families living at Sonepat who in this advanced age can attend to them in case any of them is unwell and the size of the house that it is only in 150 sq. yard and there was no probability of accommodating the above said three landlords in that house which was not having any basic amenities of sewerage, flush latrine, water connection etc. and the comparison that presently they are living in big cities, I do not feel convinced that the application made to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground that they bona fide required the premises in dispute for their personal occupation is genuine as it apparently motivated with some other consideration and most likely to sell the house, because the vacant house can fetch very handsome price whereas the house occupied by a tenant can fetch comparatively much less price. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller erred in holding that the bona fide requirement of the landlords was proved that they wanted to eject the tenant to occupy the house personally. Therefore, these findings are reversed and it is held that the landlords have failed to establish that the house was required by them for their personal occupation." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order primarily on the ground that the learned Appellate Authority was in error in reversing the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the landlord has proved the bona fide requirement and there was no ulterior motive attributed to him then it was not correct on the part of the learned Appellate Authority to have reversed the said finding on the basis of presumption. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord being best judge of his requirement, the stand taken by him, therefore, could not be disputed. 7. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be noticed that the premises in dispute was measuring 150 sq. yard whereas it has been proved on record that the petitioner and performa-respondent, who are three in numbers are well settled at different places i.e. Delhi, Gurgaon and Chandigarh. No reasons were forthcoming as to what was the necessity to shift to Sonepat. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that need was not bona fide need and was merely a desire. No reasons were forthcoming as to what was the necessity to shift to Sonepat. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that need was not bona fide need and was merely a desire. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord is best judge of his requirement, can not be disputed but it has also to be held that need set up should be bona fide and not mere desire. The findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, which is based on the material available on record clearly shows that petitioners and performa respondents have miserably failed to prove their need for shifting to Sonepat. 8. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority does not suffers from any illegality or impropriety which may call for interference by this Court. Dismissed.