JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants-plaintiffs-landlord, who are the legal representatives of original plaintiff, Bal Mukund, have filed the present second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2008 passed by learned first lower appellate Court of Additional District Judge, No. 2, Bhilwara whereby the first appeal filed by the respondent-defendant-tenant being Civil Appeal No.100/2000- Chandra Prakash v. Bal Mukund , came to be allowed reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Shahpura, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 63/1994- Bal Mukund v. Chandra Prakash decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction, the appellate court dismissed the eviction suit. 2. The original plaintiff-landlord, Bal Mukund filed suit for eviction of the respondent-defendant from the suit premises, a plot of land, measuring 60' x 64', situated at Shahpura, Bhilwara, which initially was given on rent to the defendant-tenant, Chandra Prakash in the year 1982 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1011/-. The defendant is carrying on business of selling building materials on the said plot of land. The said tenancy was oral and no written rent-note was executed. The eviction suit was filed, inter-alia, on the ground of default in making payment of monthly rent and bonafide need of the landlord as his three sons were unemployed and for setting up their business, the suit premises was sought to be evicted so that they can construct and start business of hotel on the plot of land and some part whereof may given on rent to some bank. 3. The learned trial court while deciding the Issue No.3 in relation to the bonafide need, at page 3 of the judgment and decree, has found that the PW.1 Bal Mukund (landlord) had five sons, namely, Pradeep, Anil, Arun, Naveen and Nitin, and out of which, last three sons, were qualified but unemployed at the time of filing of the suit. The landlord wanted to construct a hotel on the said plot of land and for giving part of the premises to some bank. Therefore, the suit premises was sought to be evicted for constructing and starting business of hotel for his three sons. The family of the plaintiff-landlord also owned certain buses and were doing the transport business. The landlord wanted to construct a hotel on the said plot of land and for giving part of the premises to some bank. Therefore, the suit premises was sought to be evicted for constructing and starting business of hotel for his three sons. The family of the plaintiff-landlord also owned certain buses and were doing the transport business. The learned trial court finding in favour of landlord-plaintiff held that three sons of the landlord were unemployed and, therefore, the plot in question, let out to the defendant-tenant, was bonafidely required for the business needs of the landlord and the suit deserves to be decreed and same was decreed. However, the learned trial court did not find any default in payment of rent and the issue framed in this regard came to be decided against the plaintiff-landlord. Thus, the decree of eviction was granted on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlord and the mesne profit was fixed at Rs. 450/- per month, which is said to have been paid even till now. 4. Against the decree of eviction, the defendant-tenant preferred first appeal before the learned lower appellate court, which appeal came to be allowed by the learned lower appellate court below vide its judgment and decree 22.01.2008 while reversing the findings arrived at on issue No.3 by the learned trial court relating to bonafide need of the landlord, the learned lower appellate court has discussed on the said issue at page Nos. 11 to 20 of the impugned judgment, wherein mainly the appellate court below has found against the landlord that since the family of the plaintiff-landlord owns several buses and, so also, one bus (RJ-06-P-0191) was registered in the name of Naveen Kumar, who was alleged to be unemployed in para 13 of the appellate court's judgment; and the permit for plying the said bus was also issued in the name of Naveen Kumar in the capacity of owner. Thus, the learned lower appellate court below has disbelieved the bonafide need of Naveen Kumar, one of the son of the plaintiff-landlord. Similarly, for other buses also, the learned appellate court below was of the opinion that the family of the plaintiff owned sufficient business and, therefore, the bonafide of the plaintiff-landlord could not be established by the plaintiff-landlord. Thus, the learned lower appellate court below has disbelieved the bonafide need of Naveen Kumar, one of the son of the plaintiff-landlord. Similarly, for other buses also, the learned appellate court below was of the opinion that the family of the plaintiff owned sufficient business and, therefore, the bonafide of the plaintiff-landlord could not be established by the plaintiff-landlord. The learned lower appellate court below has, therefore, held that eviction decree could not be granted in favour of plaintiff-landlord and reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 5. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court: "Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the findings on Issue No.3 of trial court in relation to bonafide need of the landlord on the basis of available material and evidence on record in this respect? 6. Dr. Sachina Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff- landlord urged that it is not for the tenant-defendant to dictate the terms in this regard and the landlord is the best judge to adjudge his business and personal needs and from the facts available on record, admittedly, the original plaintiff, Balmukund had five sons and despite having the business of transportation and running buses, it could be said that three sons, who were unemployed at the time of filing of the suit, did not require the plot of land for constructing a hotel building and for being partly let out to some bank and partly for running hotel business. He also submitted that it was categorically stated by the plaintiff's witnesses, who appeared before the learned court below viz. P.W.1, Balmukund, who has reiterated and confirmed such personal need of the landlord before the learned trial court. 7. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following case-laws:- 1. G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin reported in (2002) WLC SC 91. 2. Girdhari Lal v. Smt. Kanta & Ors. reported in 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 488. 3. R.C. Tamrakar v. Nidi Lekha reported in (2001) 8 SCC 431 . 4. Mool Chand v. Sagar Mal reported in 2004 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 819. 5. Denzil Najrath v. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217. 6. LR's of Prakash v. Poornima (SBCSA No.132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011). 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bhansali and Mr. 4. Mool Chand v. Sagar Mal reported in 2004 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 819. 5. Denzil Najrath v. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217. 6. LR's of Prakash v. Poornima (SBCSA No.132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011). 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bhansali and Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-defendant- tenant submitted that in view of such a huge business of plying buses owned by the plaintiffs' family, including the bus registered in the name of unemployed son, namely, Naveen Kumar, it could not be believed that they were unemployed and, therefore, bonafide need as claimed by the plaintiffs of the plot of land, on which the defendant-tenant is carrying on his business of selling building materials, which is the only source of his livelihood was established before the learned trial court. He, therefore, submitted that mere desire and whims of the landlord to seek eviction of the plot of land, such eviction could not be granted by the learned trial court and, therefore, the learned lower appellate court below has rightly reversed the eviction decree of the learned trial court. He further submitted that the tenant is continuously paying the mesne profit/rent of Rs. 450/- to the landlord-plaintiffs. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below and so also, the case-laws cited at the bar, this Court finds that the learned lower appellate court has grossly erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court on issue No.3, about bonafide need of the landlord. The bonafide necessity does not mean dire or dying need of the landlord and such bonafide need is not required not take the landlord or his family to the brink of starvation for seeking eviction of tenant. The plaintiffs are not expected to remain unemployed for want of vacant possession of the suit premises in question and cannot be expected to remain unemployed or wait throughout. Law does not require landlord to be poor. The plaintiffs are not expected to remain unemployed for want of vacant possession of the suit premises in question and cannot be expected to remain unemployed or wait throughout. Law does not require landlord to be poor. The law in this regard is fairly well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, in which it has been time and again held that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and if the needs are shown to be bonafide need at the time of filing of the suit, the eviction decree deserves to be granted on said grounds and it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord in this regard. 10. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima (SBCSA No.132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011) also emphasised that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms:- "5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bonafide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial court and as per the catenae of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should satisfy his bonafide need for his business place and from the facts found by the courts below it was clear that the very source of livelihood of plaintiffs was the STD PCO Booth, which is presently run under the staircase and they need bigger premises for carrying out this business. 6. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned orders passed by learned courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court and the present second appeal is liable to be dismissed and same is accordingly dismissed." 11. 6. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned orders passed by learned courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court and the present second appeal is liable to be dismissed and same is accordingly dismissed." 11. In the case of Denzil Najrath (supra) this Court has held under:- "Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and evidence recorded by the learned trial court, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the fact about the bonafide need of the landlord recorded by the learned trial court are not perverse in any manner. They are based on cogent reasons and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is required to be made in the present first appeal of the defendant-tenant. The owner-plaintiff, Swarn Singh has clearly stated in paras 7 and 8 of his affidavit that the available house with the plaintiff's family was very small of three rooms and for a family of two married brothers and three married sisters and parents of them, the said accommodation was very short of the requirement and, therefore, they needed the suit house for their own residential purposes. Nothing in the cross-examination was even asked from the said deponent about the relationship and number of family members and, therefore, the averments made in the affidavit was sufficient proof unshaken in the cross-examination of the said deponent, namely, Swarn Singh. It is well settled that findings about the bonafide need of the landlord are findings of fact and unless they can be said to be perverse or without any foundation, the same cannot be interfered with by the appellate court; and even though this is first appeal as the trial Court was that of learned Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur and requirement of substantial question of law may not be there as such as is required for second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., still this Court is satisfied that decree under appeal deserves no interference and the present appeal filed by the defendant-tenant has no merit." 12. In the case of G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin (supra), it has been held as under:- "9. In the case of G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin (supra), it has been held as under:- "9. It is settled position of law that bona fide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. In Datatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Another [ 1999 (4) SCC 1 ] , this Court while considering the bona fide need of the landlord was of the view that when a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation, he has to be prove it but there is no warrant for presuming that his need is not bonafide. It was also held that while deciding this question, court would look into the broad aspects and if the court feels any doubt about bona fide requirement, it is for the landlord to clear such doubt. 10. In Raghunath G. Panhale (D) by Lrs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. [ 1999 (8) SCC 1 ] this Court inter alia held that it was not necessary for landlord to prove that he had money to invest in the new business contemplated nor that he had experience of it. It was a case for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for non-residential purpose, as he wanted to start a grocery business in the suit premises to improve his livelihood. 11. Regarding financial capacity of the appellant, the courts below have held that appellant did not have financial capacity. From records, we find that the appellant had produced revenue records to show his ownership over agricultural land in additional to the suit premises and made a categorical statement that he would be able to raise fund from financial institutions. Both the courts below with mathematical precision considered this aspect while coming to the fact that he does not have financial capacity. We are of the view that these are irrelevant consideration as the question of having necessary fund to start the business is not at all necessary in view of the law laid down by this Court in the above decision namely Dattatraya Laxman Kamble (supra). We are of the view that these are irrelevant consideration as the question of having necessary fund to start the business is not at all necessary in view of the law laid down by this Court in the above decision namely Dattatraya Laxman Kamble (supra). That apart, as the appellant has got immovable property, it would not be difficult for him to raise necessary fund and therefore we hold that the finding on this point of the courts below is not sustainable." 13. Consequently, the present second appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs-landlord deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The substantial question of law framed above, is accordingly, answered in favour of appellants-plaintiff-landlord and against the respondent-defendant-tenant. The judgment and decree dated 22.01.2008 passed by learned first lower appellate Court of Additional District Judge, No.2, Bhilwara is set aside and the judgment and eviction decree dated 29.08.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Shahpura, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.63/1994- Bal Mukund v. Chandra Prakash decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction, is restored. The plot of land in question, situated at Shahpura, District Bhilwara, which was sought to be evicted for commercial purposes, the mesne profit/rent presently being paid by the tenant, is very meager, therefore, it is directed that the defendant-tenant shall pay Rs. 2000/- mesne profit per month from the date of trial court's judgment dated 29.08.2003 till the date of appellate court's judgment dated 22.01.2008, and Rs. 4000/- from the date appellate court's judgment dated 22.01.2008 till the vacant possession is handed over to the plaintiff-landlord. 14. The respondent-defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the appellants-plaintiffs (landlord) within a period of six months from today and shall pay mesne profit Rs. 2000/- per month commencing from the date of trial court's judgment dated 29.08.2003 till 22.01.2008 and Rs. 4000/- from the date of judgment of learned lower appellate court i.e. 22.01.2008. 2000/- per month commencing from the date of trial court's judgment dated 29.08.2003 till 22.01.2008 and Rs. 4000/- from the date of judgment of learned lower appellate court i.e. 22.01.2008. The arrears of mesne profit shall be cleared within a period of three months from today and the defendant-tenant will further continue to pay the mesne profits each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the appellants-plaintiffs till the vacant possession is handed over to the appellants-plaintiffs and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of the rent or mesne profit within three months from today, otherwise the amount shall bear interest @ 9% and executing Court may quantify such amount and recover the same as a money decree. The defendant-tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void. The respondent-defendant-tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over or rent or mesne profits are not paid to the appellants-plaintiff/landlord within a period of six months from today, besides expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the appellants-plaintiffs shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Copy of this judgment be sent to both the courts below and both the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******