JUDGMENT : 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.4.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 51/2002 whereby the learned appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent, set aside and reversed the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2000 passed by the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) East, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 154/1994 whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-appellant. 3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant- landlord filed a suit for eviction on 24.3.1994 on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity with the averments that the suit premises is required by him so that he can start jewellery business for which he has sufficient experience. It was further averred that if decree of eviction is not passed, more hardship will be faced by him in comparison to the respondent tenant as the respondent is presently in the employment of a Bank and otherwise also he can take another premises on rent whereas in absence of the suit premises the appellant will not be able to do his business. It was prayed that decree for eviction may be passed against the respondent. In the amended written statement filed on 13.5.1999, it was averred that the appellant has no bonafide and reasonable necessity for the suit premises by the reason that he is presently in a job of accountancy and he has no experience and training to do the business of jewellery. It was also. submitted that a room measuring 25 ft. x 12 ft. is in the vacant occupation of the appellant in the same building which is suitable and sufficient for the necessity shown by the appellant and there are several other rooms available with the appellant which can easily be used for the said business but the appellant is not using them and this is a clear indication of the fact that the need shown by the appellant is not bona fide and reasonable. It was further submitted that the appellant after the institution of the suit, in the year 1995 has let out a room to one Shri Banwari and this fact also indicates that the need shown by the appellant for the suit premises is not bonafide and reasonable. This averment of the plaint was denied that if the decree was not passed in favour of the appellant. more hardship will be caused to him in comparison to the respondent. In the rejoinder filed by the appellant it was denied that in the year 1995 a room was let out to one Shri Banwari and some other vacant rooms are available to the appellant for his use and occupation. It was specifically averred that Shri Banwat is tenant in a room. situated at first floor of the building since the year 1983 whereas one Shri Jankl Lal is tenant since the year 1982 and one Shri Shambhu Bangall is tenant since the year 1980. It was also averred that some other rooms of the appellant as referred by the respondent are in occupation and use of other:, tenants as mentioned in the rejoinder. It was also stated that the appellant presently has only two rooms, one kitchen and one 'Baramada' in his occupation. which are being used for residence. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence and the learned trial Court after hearing both the parties vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2000 decreed the suit filed by the appellant-landlord. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the appellant and it was found by the Court that the appellant has sufficient experience of jewellery business and he bona fidely and reasonably requires the suit premises for the same and he has no sufficient and suitable alternative accommodation for his requirement. Issue No. 3 regarding. comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the appellant by holding that the respondent presently is in the service of a Bank and he himself is not using the suit premises and no other member of his family is in use and occupation of the same whereas the appellant requires the suit premises for his own business. comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the appellant by holding that the respondent presently is in the service of a Bank and he himself is not using the suit premises and no other member of his family is in use and occupation of the same whereas the appellant requires the suit premises for his own business. So far as Issue No. 4 regarding partial eviction is concerned, it was stated by the learned trial Court that both the parties have agreed that in case the decree for partial eviction is passed requirement of none of the parties will be satisfied. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. and the same was allowed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2003. It was held by the appellate Court that the appellant has no past experience to do business of jewellery and intact he is doing a job of accountancy, and apart from that prima facie it does not seem natural that the appellant gained experience to do the business of jewellery to start that business at the age of 65 years. it was also found by the appellate Court that if for the sake of arguments; it is admitted that the appellant after leaving his job of accountancy, has gained experience of doing business of jewellery, even then he has failed to explain why he did not commence that business in some other room available to him. It was also found by the appellate Court that there are many other rooms available to the appellant but he has failed to use the same for his business. It was also held by the Court that subsequent to the filing of the suit the appellant has let out a room to a tenant and this is an indication of the fact that the need shown by the appellant is not bonafide and reasonable. It was also held that on the admission made by the appellant it is clear that at least one vacant room is available with the appellant which is presently being used only for storing water whereas this room could be used by the appellant for his need. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court under Issue No. I was reversed mainly on the ground that sufficient and suitable alternative accommodation is available to the appellant. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court under Issue No. I was reversed mainly on the ground that sufficient and suitable alternative accommodation is available to the appellant. it is pertinent to note that Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were not considered and decided on merit by the appellate Court only by the reason that Issue No. 1 has been decided against the appellant. As a consequence of the finding arrive at under Issue No. 1, the appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff- appellant is before this Court by way of this Civil Second Appeal. 4. After hearing both the parties the appeal was admitted vide order dated .11.2004 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court with regard to issue of reasonable and bonafide requirement are perverse?" 5. Assailing the judgment of the first appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court rightly held that the need shown by the appellant-landlord is bonafide and reasonable as he has sufficient experience to do the business of jewellery and he intends to start his own business and the appellant has no other suitable and sufficient vacant premises to satisfy his need but the learned appellate Court after taking irrelevant facts into consideration has reversed the findings of the trial Court. It was also submitted that from the evidence available on record at the most it can be said mat only one room is available with the appellant which is presently being used for storing water tank and which is situated in the stair-case and, therefore, it cannot be held that this room is suitable for the business of jewellery. Apart from that, the landlord is best judge of his requirement and the Court or tenant cannot advise him to satisfy his requirement in some other way. The appellate Court has also committed perversity and illegality by holding that the fact that the respondent-tenant is presently in the service of a bank is not relevant to decide and adjudge the bona fide and reasonability of the requirement shown by the appellant. The appellate Court has also committed perversity and illegality by holding that the fact that the respondent-tenant is presently in the service of a bank is not relevant to decide and adjudge the bona fide and reasonability of the requirement shown by the appellant. It was further submitted that the requirement of a landlord cannot be denied only by the reason that he has no past experience of a business or he is a person of old age.In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the cases of Vineet Jain v. Jagjit Singh, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2080 , G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin & Ors., reported in JT 2001 (9) SC 558 , Situ Ram v. Mahavir Prasad, reported in 2004 (3) WLC (Raj.) 193 , Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co., reported in AIR 2000 SC 534 , Akhileshwar Kumar & Ors. v. Mustagim & Ors., reported in (2003) 1 SCC 462 and Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kothune & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 (SC) 2236 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent by supporting the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court submitted that it is well settled that mere desire shown by the landlord is not sufficient to evict a tenant from the tenated premises and it is for the landlord to prove that the requirement shown by him for the tenanted premises is not only bona ide but also reasonable. It was further submitted that in the present case the appellant came with a specific case that he needs the suit premises to do jewellery business whereas from the evidence available on record it is clear that the appellant neither had past experience of this business nor he gained experience after the need so arise but from the very beginning he was in the job of accountancy. According to learned counsel for the respondent it is not a case in which the appellant claimed that he needs the suit property to do any business but he has come up with a case of specific business and, therefore, unless it is proved that the appellant has sufficient past experience of the jewellery business his need show for the suit premises cannot be held to be bona fide and reasonable. It was further submitted that it is most unnatural that a person like appellant who during his entire life time did the job of accountancy, without having any past experience will start a new business at the age of 65 years. It was also submitted that from the evidence available on record it has rightly been held by the appellate Court that several vacant rooms are available to the appellant in the same building in which the suitable premises is situated but the same were not used by the appellant at any time for his felt business and this fact is also relevant to decide the question of bonafide and reasonability against the appellant. it was further submitted that it is well settled legal position that if suitable and sufficient alternative accommodation is available with the landlord and the same is not used by the landlord to satisfy his need, the requirement shown for the tenanted premises cannot he said to be bona,fide and reasonable. It was also submitted that the principal that landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he has complete freedom to choose in which premises he desires to do business is not applicable in each and every case without considering the facts of the particular case. It was submitted that the learned appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence available on record has correctly held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the need. shown by the appellant cannot be held to be bonafide and I reasonable whereas in the second appeal the evidence cannot be re-appreciated. it as further submitted that the substantial question of law framed by the Court at the time of admission of appeal in fact does not arise in the light of the facts of he present case and the well settled legal position.In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the cases of Sri Kempaiah v. Lingaiah, M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan, reported in 1992 (2) All India Rent Control journal 266 ; Indrasen Jain v. Rameshwardas, Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, Puran Chand & Anr. v. Yashpal, Ashok Kumar v. Kishan Singh, Harjit Kaur v. M.K. Seth & Anr., and Sachida Nand Prasad v. Smt. Savitri Sahay, reported in (1992) All India Rent Control Journal 306 . 7. v. Yashpal, Ashok Kumar v. Kishan Singh, Harjit Kaur v. M.K. Seth & Anr., and Sachida Nand Prasad v. Smt. Savitri Sahay, reported in (1992) All India Rent Control Journal 306 . 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties 2nd also gone through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law relied upon by the parties. 8. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court shows that the findings arrived at by the trial Court under Issue No. 1 regarding bona fide and reasonability of the need shown by the appellant was reversed on the following grounds: (i) if a landlord comes with a case that he needs the tenanted premises I for a particular business, the need to be bonafide and reasonable, it is essential that the landlord has sufficient past experience and training in that business whereas in the present case the appellant has failed to prove such requirement. (ii) The appellant was always in-the job of accountancy and he has failed to prove that he has been removed from that service. (iii) It is most unnatural that appellant at the age of 65 years will gain experience of jewellery business and intend to start his own business. (iv) The appellant has failed to explain that if he really intended to start his own business why he did not start the same in any other room available to him. (v) From the admission made by one of the witnesses of the appellant, it appear that the appellant had experience of' jewellery business even at the time when the suit premises was let out to the respondent. If the suit premises intact were needed by the appellant for the business as shown by him, he would never have let out the same to the respondent. (vi) As the appellant failed to produce his other tenants as a witness this contention of the respondent is to be believed that the appellant let out several other rooms after the institution of the present suit. (vii) It is an 'admitted fact that the appellant has in his possession a room which is being used only for storing water. The appellant can shift the water tank to any other place or lie can use this room for his business even without shifting the water tank. (vii) It is an 'admitted fact that the appellant has in his possession a room which is being used only for storing water. The appellant can shift the water tank to any other place or lie can use this room for his business even without shifting the water tank. The suit premises and other rooms available to the appellant have similar source of light and air and, therefore, it cannot be said that in absence of natural light and air business of jewellery cannot be conducted in other rooms available to the appellant. (viii) To decide the question of bona,fide and reasonable necessity this fact is irrelevant that the respondent presently is in service of a bank. The need shown by the appellant cannot automatically become bona fide and reasonable only by that reason. 9. At this stage it will be useful to state in brief the relevant well settled legal position which is as under: (i) Mere assertion on the part of the landlord that he requires the accommodation in the occupation of the tenant for the purpose of his own use and occupation is not decisive. It is for the Court to determine the truth of the assertion and also whether it is bona fide. The test which has to be applied is an objective test and not a subjective one. The word 'required' signifies that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough but there should be an element of need and the landlord must show, the burden being upon him, that he genuinely requires the accommodation for the purpose Of his business. (ii) While considering the question of bonafides, what is necessary to bear in mind is that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough. The desire must he decided objectively and not subjectively. The burden lies upon the landlord to establish that he genuinely requires the premises for the purpose of his business. (iii) The word 'reasonable' connotes that the requirement or need is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. The word 'requirement' coupled with the word 'reasonable' means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. (iv) The landlord is best fudge of his requirement for business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. It cannot be a mere desire. The word 'requirement' coupled with the word 'reasonable' means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. (iv) The landlord is best fudge of his requirement for business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Neither tenant nor Court can advise the landlord how he should adjust himself and satisfy his requirement in some other way. (v) If it is found that the landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession that by itself would not be sufficient to negative the landlord's requirement shown for tenated premises but in such a situation it is expected from the landlord to establish that the premises which is available is not sufficient and suitable for the purpose for which he requires the tenanted premises. (vi) Whether the vacant premises available to the landlord is sufficient and suitable for his requirement or not will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case but mere being in possession of a vacant premises cannot negative the need shown by the landlord. Suitability of alternative accommodation available with the landlord has to seen from convenience of the landlord and on the basis of totality of circumstances including profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background of the landlord. (vii) If a landlord seeks eviction of his tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of starting business, he need not establish that he possesses the past experience and know how necessary for doing the business. If a person wants to start new business of his own, it may be to his own advantage if he acquires experience in that line but lack of past experience cannot be a ground to hold the requirement shown by the landlord not to be bonafde and reasonable. (viii) The finding of fact can be interfered in second appeal only when it is perverse based on failure to take into consideration relevant evidence on record or a misreading thereof. 10. From the pleadings and evidence available on record the findings of fact which have concurrently been held proved by the Courts below relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the suit premises, which is in the form of a room measuring 8 ft. 10. From the pleadings and evidence available on record the findings of fact which have concurrently been held proved by the Courts below relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the suit premises, which is in the form of a room measuring 8 ft. x I 1 ft., was let out to the respondent in the year 1979 for some jewellery business and since then the respondent was in use and occupation of the same but on 1.4.1992 he joined in a bank at Jaipur. It is also clear that appellant let out one room to one Shri Banwarilal in the year 1983, another room to one Shri Janki Lal in the year 1982 and a third room to some other person in the year 1975 and since then these tenants are in use and occupation of the rooms that were let out to them. There is no evidence available on record indicating that after the institution of the suit or arising of the necessity shown by the appellant, any room or other portion of the building in which the suit premises is situated was let out by the appellant to any other person. There is also no evidence on record indicating that during pendency of suit one or move rooms were got vacated and stood available for the use and occupation of the appellant. It is also clear that in the same building six other rooms and a kitchen are in the possession of the appellant but all these rooms are being used by the appellant and his family members for their residence. Out of these six rooms, one is situated in the stair-case and it is being used for storing water. It is also clear that at present there are four adult and one minor members in the family of the appellant and all are living together in the same building in which the suit premises is situated. Although, the elder son of the appellant has died during pendency of the suit and his family members are residing at Mumbai but is also clear that they visit Jaipur from time to time and stay alongwith the appellant. From the evidence available on record it is also clear that guests also come to visit appellant from time to time and stay with him. 11. From the evidence available on record it is also clear that guests also come to visit appellant from time to time and stay with him. 11. On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties in the light of the evidence available on record and the well settled legal position referred above, I am of the view that the findings arrived at by the appellate Court cannot be legally sustained as the same are against the requirement of law as well as the relevant and material evidence available on record and also non-consideration of material evidence and misreading of the evidence. This finding of the appellate Court is contrary to the legal requirement that if a landlord comes with a case that he needs the tenated premises for a particular business, the need to be bonafide and reasonable, it is essential that the landlord has past experience and training in that business and in absence of that the need cannot be considered to be bonafide and reasonable. In the present case, if for the sake of arguments it is admitted that at the time of institution of the suit and when the need arose, the appellant was still in the job of accountancy and he did not he did not possess past experience to do business of jewellery even then the requirement shown by him cannot be held to be not bona fide and reasonable. Similarly, the show cannot be refused by the reason that the appellant has attained the age of 65 years and at this stage of life it is unnatural that a person of that age intend to start a business of which he has not past experience. if a person after doing any other job for several years makes up his min4l to start and to undertake a new business even then his intention cannot be doubted. The need shown by the appellant cannot also be doubted by the reason that he failed to commence the jewellery business in any other premises available to him. If a landlord files a suit for eviction with the averment that he needs the tenanted prose for a business and if during the period in which the lis remains pending, the landlord fails to do business in any other premises of his own or otherwise, it can not mean that lie does not need the tenanted premises. If a landlord files a suit for eviction with the averment that he needs the tenanted prose for a business and if during the period in which the lis remains pending, the landlord fails to do business in any other premises of his own or otherwise, it can not mean that lie does not need the tenanted premises. It is outlook of the landlord to start the intended business in any other premises or not during the waiting period. If during this waiting period, the landlord starts his business in some other premises, he undertakes a risk as the tenant would contend that the landlord no longer requires the tenanted premises by the reason that his requirement has already been satisfied as he has started his business in some other premises. There is also no evidence available on record to show that the need shown by the appellant was intact arose before the suit premises was let out to the respondent in the year 1979 and it has been wrongly held by the appellate Court that if there was actual need before the appellant to start his own business of jewellery, he could not have let out the suit premises to the respondent. Merely on the admission made by one of the witness of the appellant, the respondent cannot be allowed to contend that the appellant had experience of jewellery business even at the time when the suit premises was let out to him more particularly looking to the fact that on the other hand it is contention of the respondent that the appellant has always been in the job of accountancy and he is still in that job and he has no experience of the business of jewellery. So far as availability of alternative accommodation to the appellant is concerned, there is no evidence at all on record indicating that any suitable and sufficient vacant room or other suitable place is available to the appellant to satisfy his requirement. At the most it can be said that one room situated in the stair-case is available but it is also clear that the same is being used for storing water. This finding of appellate Court is contrary to law that appellant can use that room for his business purpose or he can shift the water tank to some other place. At the most it can be said that one room situated in the stair-case is available but it is also clear that the same is being used for storing water. This finding of appellate Court is contrary to law that appellant can use that room for his business purpose or he can shift the water tank to some other place. A room situated in stair-case and presently in the use of storing water tank cannot be said to be suitable and sufficient for jewellery business. The well settled legal position is that the landlord is best judge of his requirement and he has complete freedom in the matter. Neither tenant nor Court can advise the landlord how he should adjust himself and satisfy his requirement in some other way. In my view the appellate Court has wrongly advised the appellant to satisfy his requirement either by shifting the water tank to any other place or by using that room without shifting the water tank for his jewellery business. So far as other rooms available with the appellant are concerned there is clear finding of fact that three rooms were let out by him well before the present suit was filed or the requirement shown by the appellant and his family members for their residence. The appellant cannot he advised of compelled to start his business in one or more of those rooms only to accommodate the respondent. The well settled legal position is that suitability of alternative accommodation available with the landlord has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and on the basis of totality of circumstances including profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background of the landlord. In the present case, when the appellant and his family members are used to live in the rooms already available with them and family members of the elder son of the appellant and guests are also visit and stay with him from time to time, it cannot be expected from the appellant that he reduce his residential requirement and after vacating one or more of them use the same for his business so that the respondent may continue to occupy the stilt premises forever. This is not the intention of law. This is not the intention of law. This finding of the appellate Court is also contrary to law that as the appellant failed to produce his other tenants as a witness, this contention of the respondent is to be believed that the appellant let out other rooms after the institution of the present suit. In my view it was for the respondent, by producing satisfactory evidence, to prove his contention that one or more rooms were let out by the appellant to some other tenants after the institution of the suit. it is to be noted that during the course of cross-examination of the appellant no such suggestion was made on behalf of the respondent that after the institution of the suit such and such room was let out by the appellant to such and such tenant or during the pendency of the suit some room was got vacated and it was let out again. Similarly, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant merely by the reason that copies of rent note or rent receipt were not filed to show that the rooms were let out to other tenants well before the present suit was instituted. It is well settled that even the finding of fact can be interfered in the second appeal it is found by the High Court that it is perverse being based on failure to take into consideration the relevant evidence on record or a misreading thereof. in the present case, I am of the considered view that the appellate Court in disregard to the evidence available on record and by misreading of the same and also ignoring the well settled legal position has wrongly set aside aid reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Such judgment and decree cannot he legally sustained and required to be set aside and reversed. 12. Consequently, this Civil Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 51/2002 is set aside and reversed and that of the trial Court dated 7.9.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 154/1994 is restored and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is decreed with costs throughout. Two months time is granted to thee defendant-respondent to vacate the suit premises and hand over the peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff-appellant. Two months time is granted to thee defendant-respondent to vacate the suit premises and hand over the peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff-appellant. The stay application also stands disposed of.Second appeal allowed. *******