Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of the aforementioned two revision petitions which have been preferred by the petitioner-landlord against two sets of judgments passed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal and the Appellate Authority, Kaithal whereby the ejectment petitions and the appeals filed by him qua one rented premises were dismissed. 2. The petitioner initially instituted an eviction petition which is subject -matter of C.R.No.2430 of 2008 on the ground of non-payment of rent by the tenant and Valso on the ground that he requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. It was pleaded that he is Secretary of Nagwan Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Barot and that he wants to set up an office of that Society in the demised premises. In so far as the non-payment of rent was concerned, the same was paid and that ground became redundant, whereas the authorities below denied the relief to the landlord on the ground of personal necessity by holding that his need and that of the Society of which he was Secretary were not co-terminus. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another ejectment petition which is subject-matter of C.R.No.2429 of 2008. Therein, it was pleaded that the tenant was in arrears of rent, that he had sub-let the demised premises and that the same was required by the landlord for own use and occupation. It was further pleaded that the tenant had sub-let the demised premises to one Mohinder, who was carrying out the business of Scrap Dealer therein and that this sub-letting was without the explicit consent of the landlord. In so far as the personal and bona fide need was concerned, it was submitted that the demised premrses was required by the landlord for opening of the office of the Society of which he was Secretary, as well as for setting up of his business of selling of pesticide and herbicide. The landlord pleaded that he was M.Sc. (Agriculture) from Chaudhry Charan Singh Agriculture University, Hisar and being an employed, he wanted to start his own business. 4. The tenant disputed the factum of sub-letting and also denied the bona fide need of the landlord. 5. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority did not agree with the claim of the landlord and declined the relief to him. 6. 4. The tenant disputed the factum of sub-letting and also denied the bona fide need of the landlord. 5. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority did not agree with the claim of the landlord and declined the relief to him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is evidence on record to show that the tenant had, in fact, stopped his business activities for which he was originally given the demised premises and further that the petitioner, being unemployed person, required the same for setting up the business of selling of pesticide and herbicide. 7. To the contrary, learned counsel for the tenant contended that there is no evidence to prove the personal necessity of the landlord, as also to prove the sub-letting. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the record. 9. The petitioner has unequivocally stated that he requires the demised premises for his own use because he is M.Sc.(Agriculture) and wants to utilize his experience by setting up a business of selling of pesticide and herbicide. In support of his plea, he has placed on record by way of evidence the certificate from the University from where he has passed the said degree. It is now a settled proposition of law that the landlord is a best judge of his needs and in the instant case, the petitioners requirement cannot be said to be so remote to the facts of the case to deny the possession of the demised premises. On the other hand, the respondent tenant has, in his cross-examination, testified that he does not own any bus and that he does not have a taxi as well, but does the business of booking only and that he does not remember the names of persons who have requisitioned his services for hiring a taxi. In this view of the matter, it is quite apparent that the tenant is not using the demised premises for the purpose for which he took the same on rent. 10. In this view of the matter, it is quite apparent that the tenant is not using the demised premises for the purpose for which he took the same on rent. 10. On the basis of the above discussion, C.R.No.2429 of 2008 is allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside, the eviction petition of the landlord is accepted and the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises is ordered, whereas C.R.No.2430 of 2008 is dismissed as no infirmity or illegality in the judgments impugned therein could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the tenant prayed that some time may be granted to the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord. I find some substance in this prayer. 12. Accordingly, the respondent-tenant is allowed six months time to hand over the physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord subject to his furnishing of an undertaking within three weeks from today before the Rent Controller in the following terms:- 1. That he shall hand over physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlady on or before 25.01.2011. 2. That he shall pay all arrears of rent up to date to the landlord within two months. 3. That he shall continue to make payment of rent at the agreed rate till the physical, vacant possession of the demised premises is handed over to the landlord. 4. That he shall not commit any default in payment of arrears of rent or the monthly rent and that even a single default will disentitle him to the benefit of this order. 5. That if the arrears of rent or the monthly rent is not paid as aforesaid, the landlord shall be entitled to execute the eviction order forthwith. 6. That the physical vacant possession of the demised premises shall be handed over to the landlord in the condition as it is. That if he makes an attempt to deviate from the undertaking, the landlord shall be entitled to apprise the Rent Controller, who shall proceed to get the demised premises vacated and to hand over the physical vacant possession thereof to him by granting police assistance,