Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. Of the three grounds of eviction namely i) non- payment of rent ii) personal use and iii) material impairment, the Rent Controller accepted the contention of landlord, as regards the claim for personal necessity alone. In appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Rent Controllers finding was upset on the observation that the Tribunal had been indeed swayed by the decrease in income of the petitioner as shown in the income tax returns as justifying her claim for personal requirement to the property for starting a new business. But according to the Appellate Authority, the landlord had been earning more than Rs. 2 Lacs per month and there was no necessity for her to obtain the property. The Appellate Authority had been particularly critical of the bona tides of the landlord, in view of the fact that the site plan depicted the availability of a larger portion of the vacant area much more than what was necessary and what the tenant had actually been in enjoyment of and therefore, even if the landlord wanted to start a fresh business, the existing vacant property available with the landlord was sufficient. The material available, according to the Appellate Authority, was indicative of the whimsical and fanciful desire to throw out an honest and bona fide tenant. Adverting to the status of the tenant, the Appellate Authority held that it was not merely an individual tenant but a Co-operative Society catering to the needs of the Ex-servicemen, as the moniker set out in the cause title suggested and the needs of such a tenant to remain in possession could not be kept out of reckoning. 2. Civil Revision No. 6285 of 2008 was in regard to another portion of the property over which the landlord had claimed ejectment for the same need as set out in the earlier rent control proceedings and the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found the personal necessity of the landlord as having been established and granted eviction in favour of the landlord. The Appellate Authority had been invited to the decision of the Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2005 but the Appellate Authority held that a decision at another case of adjoining property did not constitute res judicata and that a tenant could not derive any benefit by direction in the judgment to secure a similar verdict. The Appellate Authority had been invited to the decision of the Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2005 but the Appellate Authority held that a decision at another case of adjoining property did not constitute res judicata and that a tenant could not derive any benefit by direction in the judgment to secure a similar verdict. Consequently, the claim or ejectment for the adjoining property by the landlord, was upheld and the tenant in respect of the adjoining land is a revision petitioner in CR No. 6285 of 2008. 3. The layout map of plot No. 22 had been produced by the landlord but it was not exhibited as evidence. Though the counsel for the revision petitioner had argued that a document which had not been accepted as a material evidence could not be relied on cited and referred to a decision of this Court in Gurmail Singh v. Balbir Singh, 1998 PLR 443 the documents which are not accepted in evidence could not be considered by the Courts adverse by to the interest of either of them, he later conceded at the time of arguments that as the document produced by the landlord did not contain any defect and the same could be referred to for better understanding of the respective location of the property and for understanding the topography of the land and building in question. The demised property falls within a land area of 25 yards x 36 yards approximately. 4. The property in question was admittedly in a zone marked by the local authority as for transport business and the landlord had sought for eviction of the premises on the ground that she was intending to start a transport business, having retired from her salaried job in the British High Commission. She had admitted in the petition that she was not herself well versed with the business but she had intended to avail the service of experienced persons to assist her in the business. Her fledgling income had been Cited as one of the reasons for her to break into forays of business. The Rent Controller found, on examination of the income returns that her income had fallen over the years and she was justified in seeking the property for her business. It referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. The Rent Controller found, on examination of the income returns that her income had fallen over the years and she was justified in seeking the property for her business. It referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998(2) RCR(Rent) 533 that if the landlord showed a prima facie case for the bona fides of the requirement, the Rent Controller should proceed with such presumption of the bona fides. The other decision to the same effect were Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 582 (SC), Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi, 2001(1) RCR(Rent) 110 (P&H) and Dr. J.S. Sodhi v. Mela Ram, 2001(2) RCR(Rent) 396 (P&H). The Appellate Authority found that the income had fallen considerably but she was still earning more than Rs. 2 lacs by way of rental income of properties and from other sources. Having regard to the fact that the landlord had indicated that she was desirous to augment her income by starting a business, the Appellate Authority went on to examine the fact that the income the landlord was already earning was sufficient and hence the reason set out by the petitioner for commencing a business did not arise. 5. The approach of the Appellate Authority, in my view betrays a complete want of reasonable approach. It is not for a Court to set that what was the adequate income for a person in order that a person should venture into entrepreneurship. The entire world of business would come to an end, if there was ever a limit for what a human reckoning could consider as sufficient. A statement that the income was falling and therefore, a person was thinking of starting a business cannot be extended beyond what a normal logic in life would extend. It cannot be impressed with an artificial construct that income could be thus far and no further. I am not prepared to assess the need of the landlord in any way by inadequacy or otherwise of the income from the present source. All that was necessary to make an assessment of the available evidence ought to be seen whether there was a bona fide need for the landlord to require the premises that could be supported through oral and documentary evidence. All that was necessary to make an assessment of the available evidence ought to be seen whether there was a bona fide need for the landlord to require the premises that could be supported through oral and documentary evidence. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Pheroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and others, AIR 1974 SC 1059 that the High Court can interfere with a Lower Courts decision in revision if the finding of fact constituted gross miscarriage of justice. The decision was rendered in the context interpreting the expression "requires" under Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act when it held that the High Court cannot reassess the value of the evidence and interfere with a finding of fact merely because it thinks that the appreciation of the evidence by the lower court is wrong and the court should have reached a different conclusion of fact from what it did. Such a re-appreciation was possible if it was applying a wrong test which the law required. Another decision of the Supreme Court in Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, 2001(2) RCR(Rent) 130 : 2001(5) SCC 705 that dealt with the issue of bona fide requirement contained under Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court held that it was an essential question of fact and before it found that the Court had not applied the statute to the evidence on record in its proper perspective, the findings regarding bona fide requirement would be assessed to be a mere finding of fact and the High Court would be justified in interfering with such a finding. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 533, which the Rent Controller had also adverted to in paragraph 14, adopts a reasoning that where the landlord had asserted that he required the building for his own accommodation, the Rent Controller ought to proceed on the assumption that the requirement was bona fide. If the conditions of the clause are satisfied and the landlord showed a prima facie case, it was upon the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord was a bona fide one. "It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenant. "It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenant. While deciding the question of bona fide of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself". It is precisely this aspect that vitiates the decision of the Appellate Authority, which while examining the issue of bona fides, was attempting to show that the landlord was earning Rs. 2 lacs per year from other sources and there was, therefore, no need for her to start a business. Elsewhere in the same judgment, the Appellate Authority said that even for running the business, the property was sufficient. While settling the requirement of the landlord the Court said that the vacant space of the property was larger than the area in the occupation of the tenant and therefore it should be understood that the landlord could also carry on business in the remaining portion. The exact area of requirement depends on the extent of operations that the landlord was contemplating. The extent that a person such an existing tenant could be a modest line of operation, while a landlord may have bigger outline for the same line of business. The landlords specific contention was in a busy commercial hub such as Chandigarh and with large infrastructural outlays that the government has been emphasizing, a portion of property that fell in the measurement of 30 yards and 50 yards was not in itself a very large property but was just adequate. On the side of tenant, it was pointed out that in the evidence of the landlord, she could say exactly how much area was given on rent to the tenant and that further she had not obtained any sanction plan for the disputed plot, as to contend that there were no bona fides in the requirement of the landlord. It is one thing to say that the landlord has no knowledge of her property but another to say honestly that she cannot recall the exact area that she allowed to be occupied by the tenant. Again in the matter of commencement of business it all depends on what type of preliminary activities would be possible for a particular line of business. Again in the matter of commencement of business it all depends on what type of preliminary activities would be possible for a particular line of business. The petition had been filed in the year 2002 and any plan of action even without securing eviction in our Courts that can take more than 6-7 years before that there is any chance for conclusion of proceedings would be fertile. It would be artificial for a landlord to prepare a sanctioned plan for the construction for a property that could be obtained on eviction at a distant length of time. So long as it is brought out that the statutory requirements namely of non- availability of any other portion of property in the same area that is suitable for the landlords need, the Appellate Authority was clearly in error in reversing the decision of the Rent Controller and the approach undertaken to examine the issue on bona fide was clearly contrary to law. For all the reasoning, the decision of the Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2005 dated 25.4.2007 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. For the same reasoning and for the reasons already adverted to by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 17 of 2005 and Rent Petition No. 49 of 2002. Civil Revision No. 6285 of 2008 is dismissed. The landlord is entitled to obtain eviction of the respective premises as sought for in the respective petitions. Time for eviction is granted as two months. It is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord that the tenant is still in arrears of rent and that the benefit of time granted by the Court should be subject to the condition that the respective tenant shall pay the arrears of rent. The plea is reasonable and direct that the period of two months which is given for vacating the premises will be available for the tenant only on the condition hat the tenant shall pay the arrears of rent as due on today and will continue to pay till he vacates the premises. If there is any default on the part of the tenant, the order of stay shall stand vacated automatically without any further reference to the Court. The arrears of rent shall be paid within one week from the date of receipt of the order. If there is any default on the part of the tenant, the order of stay shall stand vacated automatically without any further reference to the Court. The arrears of rent shall be paid within one week from the date of receipt of the order. The tenant shall continue to pay rent before the 7th day of every calendar month.