JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: (Oral) - This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premises, while accepting the appeal of the respondent-landlord against the order of the Rent Controller, Jagadhari, whereby the ejectment application filed by him was dismissed. 2. The respondents-landlords in the ejectment application had averred that they were owners of the demised premises and the same was given on monthly rent of Rs.60/- per month, to respondent No.3 through its partner-Om Parkash-respondent No.4. 3. It was further averred that respondent No.4 and petitioner are the partners in the above said firm i.e. Respondent No.3 and the rent was paid by the petitioner, on behalf of respondent No.3 upto March, 2003 against valid receipts but after that the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not paid any amount and thus, respondents were liable to be ejected the following grounds:- “i) arrears of rent for the period of 10 months i.e. w.e.f.1.4.2003 to 31.1.2004 @ Rs.60/- total amounting to Rs.600/- house tax Rs.75/- and respondents are also liable to pay interest and costs as assessed by the Court. ii) the shop in question in in dilapidated as same is about 100 years old, made of old katcha bricks with wooden battons; three rooms out of the total construction of the house of which disputed shop is the part has already fallen and on the spot of other portion of the property including shop has become in miserable condition which can fell down at any time due to rainy season and in this way, whole property including shop has become dangerous which is unfit for human habitation. Moreover, there are also cracks in the walls. iii) The disputed shop is required by the petitioners for their own personal use and occupation as petitioner No.1 wants to start her business of fashion designing and Stiching from Jetcom Computer Centre Sadhaura. Further it is submitted that the petitioners are not getting any such like shop within the Municipal limits of Jagadhari nor any such shop has been vacated without sufficient cause after coming into force the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. It is submitted that petitioner has requested the respondent many times to vacate the disputed shop but all in vain. Hence, the present petition.” 4. It is submitted that petitioner has requested the respondent many times to vacate the disputed shop but all in vain. Hence, the present petition.” 4. Upon notice the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 contested the ejectment application. The factum of tenancy was admitted. However, it was denied that they were inducted as tenants @ Rs.60/- per month, rather, it was Rs.30/- per month which was increased from time to time. It was also stated that rent was fixed @ Rs.60/- per month w.e.f. 02.11.1996, by compromise, in the Court. It was submitted that the rent was payable yearly and tenants were making payment against the receipts. Further, it was stated that the rent as claimed was not due against them but the amount as claimed has been tendered and thus the ground of non-payment of rent was not available. All other grounds as alleged by the respondents-landlords were denied and it was prayed that present petition be dismissed. Additionally, plea was taken that petition was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the respondents were estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the instant ejectment. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether respondents are liable to be ejected from the demised premises, on the grounds as alleged? OPP 2. Whether petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 3. Whether petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR 4. Whether petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by their own act and conduct? OPD 5. Relief. 6. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the Rent Controller reached to the conclusion that there was no dispute of landlord and tenant relationship in the instant ejectment petition. The Rent Controller further observed that the rent was tendered by the tenant-petitioner without making any statement/protest and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that respondents do not have any locus standi to file the present petition. Further, the Rent Controller found that the ground of personal necessity and that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was not proved and thus, the ejectment petition was dismissed. 7. Further, the Rent Controller found that the ground of personal necessity and that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was not proved and thus, the ejectment petition was dismissed. 7. It may also be relevant to mention that onus to prove issue No.2 to 4 was upon the tenant/petitioner, however, the aforesaid issues were held against them as not pressed. 8. Aggrieved from the order of the Rent Controller, the respondents-landlords filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 19.07.2011. 9. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the findings of the Rent Controller on the issue of non-payment of rent and that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation in favour of the tenant-petitioner. However, the Appellate Authority found that ground of personal necessity of the petitioner for personal and bonafide use of demised premises was proved from the evidence on record and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the said ground. 10. The relevant part of the judgment of the Appellate Authority reads thus:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is not sustainable. In so far the ground of non-payment of rent is concerned, the same had been given up after the rent was tendered. The findings of the learned Rent Controller with regard to the ground of the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, do no suffer from any illegality nor has any argument been raised with regard to that. The question of relationship of landlady and tenant would also not arise, firstly, no objection was raised in the written statement and the relationship was in fact admitted. It is settled law that no amount of evidence beyond the pleadings can be looked into and considered. Still, further, there are a number of documents/judgments on record to show that earlier also these very landlords had filed an eviction petition which had duly been contested by the present respondents. No objection had raised even then. The rent was also tendered to the present appellant. Therefore, the findings of the learned Rent Controller on the question of the relationship of landlady and tenant are upheld. No objection had raised even then. The rent was also tendered to the present appellant. Therefore, the findings of the learned Rent Controller on the question of the relationship of landlady and tenant are upheld. Coming to the ground of personal necessity, the learned Rent Controller erred in nonsuiting the appellant on the same. It is settled law that a landlord is the best judge of his requirements and the tenants is no one to dictate the terms and conditions to the landlord. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Ashwani Kumar and others versus Pardeep Kumar and others, 2005(1) RCR 634 and Sadhu Singh versus Jatinder Mohan and others, 2007(2) RCR 627, Amar Nath Dhawan of Yamuna Nagar versus Smt. Santosh Kumar Garg and another (supra). It is equally well settled that if a landlord wishes to do a particular business, he is not required to have any previous experience not is he required to be qualified for the same. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Paras Ram versus Suresh Kumar (supra). Dattatraya Laxman Kamble versus Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune (supra). The appellant produced her certificate Ex.P1. To prove the same PW1 Surinder Kumar appeared in the witness box. No doubt in the cross examination he stated that he was running a grocery shop. This itself was not a ground to nonsuit the appellant. Now a days it is very common for even uneducated people to run huge educational institutions. For them, it is a business. The learned trial court was, therefore, not justified in saying that since PW1 Surinder Kumar was running a grocery shop, he could not run a center for stitching etc. In the opinion of this Court, even if the appellant has not examined PW1, it would not have made a difference because as held above, it was not incumbent upon her to prove that she was having a qualification or the experience for running the business. The learned trial court was also not justified in holding that since the appellant was married and her in laws were agriculturists and was residing in a village with them, a shop in Jagadhari would not suit her requirement. The learned trial Court was not justified in substituting its own opinion. The learned trial court was also not justified in holding that since the appellant was married and her in laws were agriculturists and was residing in a village with them, a shop in Jagadhari would not suit her requirement. The learned trial Court was not justified in substituting its own opinion. It is for the landlady to see as to whether she would be in a position to run a shop in Jagadhari when her family was living in a village or not. Her thought process cannot be determined by others. The learned Rent Controller was also not correct in holding that the ground of the shop in dispute having become unsafe and unfit and personal necessity could not co-exist. It is settled law that these grounds are not mutually destructive and a landlord can very well raise both the grounds at the same time. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Amar Nath Dhawan of Yamuna Nagar versus Smt. Santosh Kumar Garg and another (supra), Kusum Devi versus Mohan Lal (dead) by the LRs (supra).” 11. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as from the evidence on record, the personal necessity of the respondents-landlords is not proved and the impugned judgment is based on mis-reading of the evidence on record. Elaborating his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that certificate Ex.P1 produced by the respondent-landlord, to support her claim that she wants to start the Course of Fashion Designing and Stitching in the demised shop, is false (which fact has been proved from the testimony of PW1-Surinder Kumar, who has allegedly issued the said certificate and who himself does not know about the Course), thus, under the pretext of personal necessity, respondent-landlord wants to evict the petitioner. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. 13. It is settled law that a landlord is the best judge of his requirements and the tenants is no one to dictate the terms and conditions to the landlord. It is equally well settled that if a landlord wishes to do a particular business, he is not required to have any previous experience, nor he is required to be qualified for the same. It is equally well settled that if a landlord wishes to do a particular business, he is not required to have any previous experience, nor he is required to be qualified for the same. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune, 1990(1) RCR 508. 14. Thus, even if respondent-landlord is not having the requisite qualification/experience, it will not make any difference with regard to her personal necessity as it was not incumbent upon her to have a qualification and experience for running the business. 15. Thus, no interference is required in the view taken by the Appellate Authority with regard to personal necessity of the respondent-landlord. 16. No other point was argued. 17. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. 18. Dismissed. ------------------