Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity and correctness of the order and judgment dated 14.1.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 2005 whereby the order and judgment dated 16.2.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad in P.A. Case No. 49 of 1999, Dr. Ashok Kumar versus M/s Bombay Dry Cliners and others has been affirmed. 3. By order dated 16.2.2005 the release application of the landlord was allowed directing the tenant to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the property in dispute to the landlord within two months from the date of the order. By order dated 14.1.2010 the appeal filed by the petitioners tenants against the order dated 16.2.2005 was dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are the landlords of two rooms which is a part of the Hospital/Nursing Home situated at Jai Niwas State Bank Colony. The petitioners are tenants of the said two rooms @ Rs.90/- per month where they are doing business of Dry Cliners in the name of M/s Bombay Dry Cliners. The respondent is a Doctor and is a General Surgeon and is running a hospital in the premises in dispute in the name of S.S. Hospital. 5. The respondent had filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the two tenanted rooms on the grounds that he had a need of the said rooms for expansion of his hospital. 6. The petitioner had contested the release application by filing his written statement. It was stated by the petitioner that the premises in dispute consists of three floors. The respondent is having 19 rooms as private wards, there are three General Wards on the ground floor having 14 beds apart from Doctor Chamber one medical shop, x-ray room, Reception room and the big operation theater as well as toilets. On the second and third floor there is residence of Dr. Ashok Kumar and separate kitchen for the patient. 7. During the pendency of the release application the petitioner filed an application 99-C for issuing commission in respect of submitting report with regard to property in dispute. 8. On the second and third floor there is residence of Dr. Ashok Kumar and separate kitchen for the patient. 7. During the pendency of the release application the petitioner filed an application 99-C for issuing commission in respect of submitting report with regard to property in dispute. 8. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent landlord has filed the release application on the ground that he has more than 30 rooms in his hospital which was not specifically denied by him as such in order to decide the question of bonafide need for expansion of the hospital it was necessary to assess as to what extent of accommodation is in possession of the landlord particularly in view vague objections on behalf of the landlord against the application for issuing commission. 9. It is further stated that the landlord has concealed the correct extent of accommodation which is in his possession and has come forward with a false plea that he is running his hospital from 10 rooms when in fact the landlord has in his possession more than 30 rooms and 35 beds in his hospital, therefore, in the situation of the present case, the Prescribed Authority instead of exercise suo-moto power vested in him for issuing commission has rejected the application of the petitioner on misconceived grounds by the impugned order dated 11.10.2004. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.10.2004 the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54589 of 2004 before the High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2004 remanding the matter with observation that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order in accordance with law if the Prescribed Authority decides the case against him. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Prescribed Authority has failed to understand the difference between wish or desire for accommodation and genuine need of the accommodation; that he has also ignored the well settled principle of law that the bonafide need has to establish by the landlord himself which he in the present case, has failed to establish and that the need set up by him is not genuine and pressing. He further submits that respondent has purchased one more property in the name of his wife Smt. Sushma Kumar having an area of 541.78 sq. He further submits that respondent has purchased one more property in the name of his wife Smt. Sushma Kumar having an area of 541.78 sq. meters which is situated near the hospital, hence he can shift his hospital there as the bonafide need and comparative hardship of the petitioner is greater than the respondent. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that just adjacent to the disputed premises the petitioner has also purchased the premises measuring about 24.46 sq.meters,hence they have no right to keep the shops of the landlords in their possession. On the ground floor of this premises there is a court yard, stair case and toilet and on the first floor. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also admitted another residential house in Civil Lines, Moradabad in which he was residing; that the petitioners have already shifted on the first floor of their shops at Gurhatti Chauraha which was purchased by them by registered sale-deed dated 26.7.1986. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of aforesaid submissions has relied upon the following rulings. 1. ARC 2007(2)-1, Rishi Kumar Govil versus Maqsoodan and others, 2. ALR 2008 (70) 301 SC, Yadvendra Arya and another versus Mukesh Kumar Gupta, 3. 2007 (1) ARC-396, Rakesh Kumar Joshi versus Narendra Kumar Gupta and others, 4. (2007 (1) ARC-504, Dalip Singh (Sardar) versus Rakesh Kumar, 5. ( 2007 (69) ALR-737, Zaheer Ahmad Shamsi alias Munney Bhai versus Imtiaz Hussain and another, 6. 2007 (2) ARC-762, Raghuvir Singh Saini versus Brij Mohan Gupta, and, 7. ( 2002 (47) ALR-807 Moinuddin versus 4th Additional District Judge, Mathura and others. 14. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid rulings cited by the learned counsel for the respondents landlords. 15. In paragraph 19 of the judgment rendered in Rishi Kumar Govil versus Maqsoodan and others it has been held that- "19. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co., AIR (2000) SC 534: 2000 SCFBRC 24, it was held that it is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the business which is most suitable for him. He has complete freedom in the matter. In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava, AIR (2001) SC 803: 2001 (1) ARC 352 it was held that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for release. He has complete freedom in the matter. In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava, AIR (2001) SC 803: 2001 (1) ARC 352 it was held that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for release. In Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan, 1996 (5) SCC 353 it was held that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with. The High Court noted that when the Prescribed Authority passed the order son of the respondent-landlady was 20 years old and the shop was sought to be released for the purpose of settling him in business. More than 20 years have elapsed and the son has become more than 40 years of age and she has not been able to establish him as she has still to get the possession of the shop and the litigation of the dispute is still subsisting. The licence for repairing fire arms can only be obtained when there is a vacant shop available and in the absence of any vacant shop, licence cannot be obtained by him. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion concurring with that of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority that the need of the landlady is bona fide and genuine. Considering the factual findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority and analysed by the High Court,there is no scope for any interference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the period for which the premises in question are in the occupation of the appellant time is granted till 31st December, 2007 to vacate the premises subject to filing of an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of 2 weeks to deliver the vacant possession on or before the stipulated date. There will be no order as to costs" 16. In paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of the judgment rendered in Yadvendra Arya and another versus Mukesh Kumar Gupta, the Court held that- 11. There will be no order as to costs" 16. In paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of the judgment rendered in Yadvendra Arya and another versus Mukesh Kumar Gupta, the Court held that- 11. So far as the basic need concept is concerned in Akhileshwar Kumar and Others v. Mustaqim and Others [ AIR 2003 SC 532 ] it was inter alia held as follows: "In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court cannot be countenanced and has occasioned a failure of justice. Overwhelming evidence is available to show that the plaintiff No. 1 is sitting idle, without any adequate commercial activity available to him so as to gainfully employ him. The plaintiff No. 1 and his father both have deposed to this fact. Simply because the plaintiff No. 1 is provisionally assisting his father in their family business, it does not mean that he should never start his own independent business. What the High Court has overlooked is the evidence to the effect, relied on by the trial Court too, that the husband of plaintiff No. 4, i.e. son-in-law of Ram Chandra Sao, was assisting the latter in his business and there was little left to be done by the three sons. 4. So is the case with the availability of alternative accommodation, as opined by the High Court. There is a shop in respect of which a suit for eviction was filed to satisfy the need of plaintiff No. 2. The suit was compromised and the shop was got vacated. The shop is meant for the business of plaintiff No. 2. There is yet another shop constructed by the father of the plaintiffs which is situated over a septic tank but the same is almost inaccessible inasmuch as there is a deep ditch in front of the shop and that is why it is lying vacant and unutilized. Once it has been proved by a landlord that the suit accommodation is required bona fide by him for his own purpose and such satisfaction withstands the test of objective assessment by the Court of facts then choosing of the accommodation which would be reasonable to satisfy such requirement has to be left to the subjective choice of the needy. The Court cannot thrust upon its own choice on the needy. Of course, the choice has to be exercised reasonably and not whimsically. The Court cannot thrust upon its own choice on the needy. Of course, the choice has to be exercised reasonably and not whimsically. The alternative accommodation which have prevailed with the High Court are either not available to the plaintiff No. 1 or not suitable in all respects as the suit accommodation is. The approach of the High Court that an accommodation got vacated to satisfy the need of plaintiff No. 2, who too is an educated unemployed should be diverted or can be considered as relevant alternative accommodation to satisfy the requirement of plaintiff No. 1, another educated unemployed brother, cannot be countenanced. So also considering a shop situated over a septic tank and inaccessible on account of a ditch in front of the shop and hence lying vacant cannot be considered a suitable alternative to the suit shop which is situated in a marketing complex, is easily accessible and has been purchased by the plaintiffs to satisfy the felt need of one of them." 12. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. it was held as follows : "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." 13. In Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal it was held as follows: "In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Another this Court emphasized the need of social legislations like the Rent Control Act striking a balance between rival interests so as to be just to law. "The law ought not to be unjust to one and give a disproportionate benefit or protection to another section of the society". While the shortage of accommodation makes it necessary to protect the tenants to save them from exploitation but at the same time the need to protect tenant is coupled with an obligation to ensure that the tenants are not conferred with a benefit disproportionately larger than the one needed. Socially progressive legislation must have a holistic perception and not a shortsighted parochial approach. Power to legislate socially progressive legislation is coupled with a responsibility to avoid arbitrariness and unreasonability. Socially progressive legislation must have a holistic perception and not a shortsighted parochial approach. Power to legislate socially progressive legislation is coupled with a responsibility to avoid arbitrariness and unreasonability. A legislation impregnated with tendency to give undue preference to one section, at the cost of constraints by placing shackles on the other section, not only entails miscarriage of justice but may also in constitutional invalidity. xxx xxx xxx The need for reasonable interpretation of rent control legislations was emphasized by this Court in Bega. Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan Speaking in the context of reasonable requirement of landlord as a ground for eviction, the Court guarded against any artificial extension entailing stretching or straining of language so as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction. The Court warned that such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. In Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti this Court has observed, while the rent control legislation has given a number of facilities to the tenants, it should not be construed so as to destroy the limited relief which it seeks to give to the landlord also. For instance, one of the grounds for eviction which is contained in almost all the Rent Control Acts in the country is the question of landlord's bona fide personal necessity. The concept of bona fide necessity should be meaningfully construed so as to make the relief granted to the landlord real and practical. Recently in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr Mahesh Chand Gupta the Court has held that the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. 9. The rent control legislations are heavily loaded in favour of the tenants treating them as weaker sections of the society requiring legislative protection against exploitation and unscrupulous devices of greedy landlords. The legislative intent has to be respected by the courts while interpreting the laws. But it is being uncharitable to legislatures if they are attributed with an intention that they lean only in favour of the tenants and while being fair to the tenants, go to the extent of being unfair to the landlords. The legislative intent has to be respected by the courts while interpreting the laws. But it is being uncharitable to legislatures if they are attributed with an intention that they lean only in favour of the tenants and while being fair to the tenants, go to the extent of being unfair to the landlords. The legislature is fair to the tenants and to the landlords - both. The courts have to adopt a reasonable and balanced approach while interpreting rent control legislations starting with an assumption that an equal treatment has been meted out to both the sections of the society. In spite of the overall balance tilting in favour of the tenants, while interpreting such of the provisions as take care of the interest of the landlord the court should not hesitate in leaning in favour of the landlords. Such provisions are engrafted in rent control legislations to take care of those situations where the landlords too are weak and feeble and feel humble. xxx xxx xxx In providing key to the meaning of any word or expression the context in which it is set has significance. Color and content emanating from context may permit sense being preferred to mere meaning depending on what is sought to be achieved and what is sought to be prevented by the legislative scheme surrounding the expression. Requirement of landlord for his own use, is an expression capable for attributing an intention to the legislature that what was intended to be fulfilled is such requirement as would persuade the landlord to have the premises vacated by the tenant, to forego the rental income, and to put the premises to such use as the landlord would deem to be his own use and in the given facts and circumstances of a case the Court too would hold it to be so in contradistinction with a mere ruse to evict the tenant. The legislature intending to protect the tenant also intends to lift the protection when it is the requirement of landlord to put the accommodation to such use as he intends, away from leasing it out. xx xx xxx 32. If we do not meaningly construe the concept of requirement the provision may suffer from the risk of being branded as unreasonable, arbitrary or as placing uncalled for and unreasonable restrictions on the right of the owner to hold and use his property. xx xx xxx 32. If we do not meaningly construe the concept of requirement the provision may suffer from the risk of being branded as unreasonable, arbitrary or as placing uncalled for and unreasonable restrictions on the right of the owner to hold and use his property. We cannot place a construction on the expression `for his own use' in such a way as to deny the landlord a right to evict his tenant when he needs the accommodation for his own son to settle himself well in his life. We have to give colour and content to the expression and provide the skin of a living thought to the skeleton of the words, which the Legislature has not itself chosen to define. The Indian society, its customs and requirements and the context where the provision is set in the legislation are the guides leading to acceptance of the meaning which we have chosen to assign to the words `for his own use' in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. 33(1) In the present case, the requirement of landlord of the suit premises for user as office of his chartered accountant son is the requirement of landlord 'for his own use' within the meaning of Section 13(3)(a)(ii)." 17. In Rakesh Kumar Joshi versus Narendra Kumar Gupta and others, this Court held that- "Law is well settled that if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires, in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, in which the building under tenancy is situate, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy. 18. In Dalip Singh (Sardar) versus Rakesh Kumar, Zaheer Ahmad Shamsi alias Munney Bhai versus Imtiaz Hussain and another and Raghubir Singh Saini versus Brij Mohan Gupta, this Court has held once the tenant or any member of his family acquires the accommodation in a vacant state, he has no right to keep the accommodation of the landlord in his possession. 19. 19. In the case of Moinuddin versus 4th Additional District Judge, Mathura and others, respondent landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in question under the tenancy of the petitioner for settling his son in General Merchant shop which was registered as P.A. Case No. 62 of 1994. The petitioner filed his written statement denying the averments made therein. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 13.1.198 rejected the release application of the landlord. The landlord went in appeal before the appellate court which allowed vide order and judgment dated 23.1.2002 by setting aside the order dated 13.1.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved the petitioner filed the petition challenging the order dated 23.1.2002, passed by the appellate Court. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition held that the need of the landlord is more pressing and bonafide and the need of the petitioner- tenant cannot be said to be as pressing as that of landlord, particularly in the circumstances when the petitioner tenant has not made any effort to find out an alternative shop during all these periods and also coupled with the finding that there is another shop in which the tenant is carrying on the same business. 20. It appears from the record that the petitioners tenants have acquired their own properties and in so far as the activity of Dry Cleaning is concerned, it has come on record that they have already shifted the same on the first floor of their shops at Gurhatti Chauraha which was purchased by them vide registered sale-deed dated 26.7.1986. It has also come on record that they had constructed their own properties in the Madhubani Colony on plot nos. 34 and 35 in which they have shifted with their families and their property situated at State Bank Colony was lying vacant. It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the business which is most suitable for him. Landlord is the best judge of his requirements and Courts have no say in the matter unless there is element of arbitrariness or malafide in such action of the landlord. 21. It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the business which is most suitable for him. Landlord is the best judge of his requirements and Courts have no say in the matter unless there is element of arbitrariness or malafide in such action of the landlord. 21. Law is well settled that if tenant or any members of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under tenancy. 22. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property which the petitioner had purchased is now said to have sold to another person. Therefore, it follows that his intention was not bonafide and is malicious. It is not in dispute that during pendency of release application the petitioner purchased a plot in front of the tenanted shops across the gate/road measuring about 24.50 sq.yards where he has shifted his business. It appears that he wants to retain the shops in dispute with ulterior motives. If he has authority to suggest the landlord to shift his hospital to another property about 2 kms. away he can on same principle shift his shop across the road. 23. The findings recorded by both the courts below on bonafide need and comparative hardship are pure findings of fact in favour of the landlord which cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution unless shown to be perverse which the petitioner has failed to establish. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The petitioner is granted one month's time to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the property in dispute to the landlord. Petition Dismissed.