Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The Legal Representatives of tenant Ram Karan are before this Court against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby his eviction has been ordered from the premises in dispute on account of personal necessity. 2. The shop in question was rented out to Shri Ram Karan Dass on June 1, 1979, after his death, he is now represented by his Legal Representatives. The eviction was sought by the respondent/landlord on the ground of personal necessity to start the business of general merchandise and kiryana in retail and wholesale. It was stated by the landlord that he has sufficient experience to carry on business of general merchandise and kiryana and wanted to start the same in the demised premises as the same is most suited premises for the purpose, which is situated at Railway Road, Narwana. He further submitted that he has only two shops on Railway Road and both are rented. The eviction petition was contested by petitioner/tenant on the ground that landlord is 70 years of age. The need is not bonafide. Further it was submitted that he owns a number of shops and many of those are on rent with various tenants. 3. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition filed by respondent/landlord opining that there was no bonafide need for setting up the business. In appeal before the Appellate Authority, landlord succeeded. On appreciation of evidence on record, learned Appellate Authority found that it is not in dispute that respondent/landlord is not in possession of any vacant premises and further that he was not doing business. In case even at the age of 70 years, he wanted to run business and lead active life, which he left some years back on account of his eye ailment, the need set up by the respondent/landlord cannot be held to be a mere desire. The finding recording by the Rent Controller that sufficient reason as to why the respondent/landlord stopped doing business were not there was reversed by the Appellate Authority holding that minute evidence was not required to be led in this regard. Even if at some point of time, landlord had stopped doing business, it cannot be assumed that for all time to come, he cannot start a business and to keep him busy and cannot open a shop. 4. Even if at some point of time, landlord had stopped doing business, it cannot be assumed that for all time to come, he cannot start a business and to keep him busy and cannot open a shop. 4. Further it needs to be noticed that during the pendency of appeal tenant Ram Karan had expired and now he was represented by his Legal Representatives. 5. In his cross examination the tenant admitted that he and his brother had jointly constructed a couple of shop on the land taken by them from Municipal Committee. His sons run business in the name and style of M/s Bharat Agency. His sons had purchased five shops in the month of February, 2001 and that sale deed was registered under his own signature. Still further he could not deny that respondent/landlord was jobless at the relevant time. Here is a case where the tenant, who had taken the premises in dispute had already expired and admittedly now represented by his Legal Representatives sons, who are admittedly carrying on their business in various shops purchased by them. The facts of the case in Indrasen Jain v. Rameshwardas AIR 2005 Supreme Court 578 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are quite different and the same do not in any way support his case. As in that case, landlord after 8 years of his retirement purchased the property in dispute for carrying on business and under the circumstances it was opined that in case there was genuine need to carry on the business, the landlord could purchase vacant premises and not a tenanted one. 6. Against this learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments of this Court in Sarup Chand v. Siri Chand 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 375, Akthars v. Hitesh v. Shah 2000 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 53, Kedar Nath Bhatnagar v. Shri Dharam Paul 1978 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 49, Ramjidas v. Rambabu 2000 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 179 and Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. 2000 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 135 to submit that it is the landlord, who is the best judge of his requirement of any residential/business premises. He had complete freedom in the matter and the tenant is no one to dictate term for that. 2000 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 135 to submit that it is the landlord, who is the best judge of his requirement of any residential/business premises. He had complete freedom in the matter and the tenant is no one to dictate term for that. In the present case, it has been stated by the respondent/landlord that the premises in question is the most suitable for carrying on the business of general merchandise and kiryana. There is no other vacant premises available in the vicinity. Honble the Supreme Court in Ragavendra Kumars case (supra) held as under: The learned Single Judge of the High Court while formulating first substantial question of law proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff-landlord admitted that there were number of plots, shops and houses in his possession. We have been taken through the judgments of the Courts below and we do not find any such admission. It is true that the plaintiff-landlord in his evidence stated that there were number of other shops and houses belonging to him but he made a categorical statement that his said houses and shops were not vacant and that suit premises is suitable for his business purpose. It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. [See-Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan]. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted. 7. In Ramjidass case (supra) Honble the Supreme Court opined that even if on an earlier occasion, the landlord evicted some tenant from a shop for starting business and let out the same, still after considerable time, if the landlord required some premises, his fresh need can be considered in the changed circumstances. 8. In Vaneet Jain v. Jagjit Singh 2000 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 507, Honble the Supreme Court on the jurisdiction of the High Court in rent matters opined as under: A perusal of Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act shows that the power of High Court to revise an order is not an appellate power, but it is also true that is not akin to power exercisable under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is no doubt true that the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order passed by the appellate authority if legality or propriety of such order demands such interference. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not permissible for the High Court to reassess or re-appraise the evidence to arrive at a finding contrary to the finding of fact recorded by the Court below.... 9. In the present case, the petitioners who are legal heirs of the tenant Ram Karan, are admittedly carrying on business in their separate premises purchased by them. The entire efforts is to some how or the other to retain the premises in dispute as well. In my opinion, this is not the spirit of the Rent Act vide which the protection had been given to the tenants. 10. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.