JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Suresh Kumar, one of the three tenants, has filed this revision petition under section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act), having lost before both the Authorities below. 2. Respondent no. 1 Nathu Ram landlord filed two ejectment petitions under section 13 of the Act against petitioner herein and his brother Naresh Kumar and sister Usha (proforma respondents no. 2 and 3 herein). In ejectment petition no. 3 of 2008, ejectment was sought on three grounds i.e. non-payment of rent, bonafide necessity of the demised shop for business of landlord’s son Gulshan and also that the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the second ejectment petition no. 18 of 2010, ejectment was sought on ground of non-payment of rent for subsequent period. However, in the instant revision petition, bonafide requirement of the demised shop for business of landlord’s son Gulshan is in issue. Para 3(b) of the ejectment petition detailing the necessity of the demised shop for son of the landlord is reproduced hereinunder:- “(b) That the petitioner requires the demised premises for bonafide need of his son Gulshan, aged 33 years, who is already running a Sanitary Shop adjoining the demised shop and which is of the size 11' x 22' but is not sufficient for running the Sanitary Shop. The pipes placed in the Sanitary business are very long and the water tanks etc. are very bulky. The area in occupation of Gulshan is quite insufficient for running that business, so the petitioner and his son Gulshan intends to demolish the intervening walls of the demised shop and convert the two shops and gallery in shop which would naturally be bigger in size3 and sufficient to run the Sanitary Business properly. It may be stated that the shop now in occupation of Gulshan was got vacated from its previous tenant in 1991 after getting an eviction decree from the Court. Thus, the petitioner requires the demised shop for his personal bonafide necessity i.e. the expansion of the shop of his son as described above. The demised shop is the only shop that can be joined in the existing shop of Gulshan. The petitioner has not vacated any premises after the commencement of the 1949 Act.” 3. Thus, the petitioner requires the demised shop for his personal bonafide necessity i.e. the expansion of the shop of his son as described above. The demised shop is the only shop that can be joined in the existing shop of Gulshan. The petitioner has not vacated any premises after the commencement of the 1949 Act.” 3. The tenancy was initially created in favour of Tarsem Chand father of petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3 herein and now they are the tenants. 4. The tenants in their reply controverted the averments of the landlord while admitting the tenancy. Corresponding paragraph no. 3(b) of the written reply filed on behalf of the petitioner herein is reproduced hereinunder:- “(b) Sub-para 3(b) of petition is wrong hence, denied. The petitioner do not require the demised premises for the alleged bonafide need of his son Gulshan. The premises in his possession in which he is running the business are sufficient for his business. The intention to demolish the intervening walls and to convert the two shops and gallery in one shop is not bonafide and necessary. The petitioner do not require the demised premises for his personal bonafide necessity or extension of the shop of his son. It is incorrect that the demised shop is the only shop that can be joined in the existing shop of Gulshan. It is also incorrect that the petitioner has not vacated any premises after commencement of 1949 Act. In fact, Gulshan son of petitioner is owner in possession of two shops at Patiala Chowk, Jind. The front of the shop is about 2-’ and about 50' deep. Both the shops are lying vacant. Gulshan Kumar got the shops on 20.4.2005.” 5. Learned Rent Controller, Jind vide common judgment dated 25.7.2011 allowed both the ejectment petitions and directed the tenants to hand over vacant possession of the demised shop to the landlord. Suresh Kumar tenant no. 1 preferred two appeals against judgment of the Rent Controller (there being two ejectment petitions). Landlord also preferred two appeals against judgment of the Rent Controller. Learned Appellate Authority, Jind vide common judgment dated 23.3.2012 dismissed all the four appeals. Feeling aggrieved, tenant no. 1 has filed the instant revision petition challenging the ejectment order passed in ejectment petition no. 3 of 2008. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Learned Appellate Authority, Jind vide common judgment dated 23.3.2012 dismissed all the four appeals. Feeling aggrieved, tenant no. 1 has filed the instant revision petition challenging the ejectment order passed in ejectment petition no. 3 of 2008. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the landlord has not pleaded necessary ingredients of the ground of ejectment based on bonafide requirement as it was not pleaded that the landlord or his son was not occupying any other premises in the urban area concerned. It was submitted that it is mandatory to plead this ingredient of the ground of bonafide requirement failing which the landlord cannot succeed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on Full Bench judgment of this Court in Banke Ram vs. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977(1) RCR (Rent) 595 and also judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and Anr. vs. Jit Ram and Anr., [2008(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2874 (SC)] : 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 390. It was also contended that not only the necessary pleading is missing but also landlord’s son Gulshan has other two shops at Patiala Chowk, Jind i.e. in the same urban area and therefore, necessary ingredients of bonafide requirement of the landlord for business of his son are not proved. It was also submitted that need of the landlord is not bonafide. It is undisputed that landlord’s son is already carrying on business in a shop adjacent to the demised shop. Landlord’s son Gulshan admitted that there are rooms on first floor of both the shops and he is storing his goods in the said rooms. It was contended that landlord himself denied that his son is storing goods in the said rooms. It was also pointed out that Gulshan stated that there are no shops in the building at Patiala Chowk, Jind although landlord himself admitted that he had been carrying on business in those shops till 1996. It was thus emphasized that need of the landlord as pleaded is not bonafide. It was also pointed out that Gulshan stated that there are no shops in the building at Patiala Chowk, Jind although landlord himself admitted that he had been carrying on business in those shops till 1996. It was thus emphasized that need of the landlord as pleaded is not bonafide. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gullabbai vs. Nalin Narsi Vohra and others, AIR 1991 SC 1760 and two judgments of this Court in The Guhla Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., Guhla vs. Jagdish Singh, 2010(1) Rent Law Reporter 178 and Nand Kishore vs. Surinder Kaur, 2010 (2) Rent Law Reporter 372. 8. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1 landlord contended that the landlord’s son is already carrying on his business in Shastri Market, Bharat Cinema Road, Jind in a shop adjacent to the demised shop since 1991 and therefore, he cannot be expected to shift his business to different locality of Patiala Road, Jind. It was thus contended that need of the landlord for the business of his son is bonafide as rightly held by both the Authorities below. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no quarrel with the legal preposition that all necessary ingredients of ground of bonafide requirement including the ingredient that the landlord is not occupying any other premises in the urban area concerned have to be pleaded and proved. However, the pleading in this regard is to be read as a whole and there is no specific expression or phrase which is required to be pleaded in this regard. On the contrary, mere reproduction of the language of the statute in this regard would not be desirable. In the instant case, necessary pleading of the landlord has already been reproduced hereinbefore. The said pleading would depict that the landlord pleaded that there is no other suitable premises which can be joined with the existing shop of landlord’s son. In other words, the demised shop is the only suitable premises for the business of the landlord’s son who is already carrying on his business of sanitary goods in the adjacent shop. Bare perusal of paragraph 3(b) of the ejectment petition would reveal that all necessary ingredients of the ground of bonafide requirement have been pleaded. 10. In other words, the demised shop is the only suitable premises for the business of the landlord’s son who is already carrying on his business of sanitary goods in the adjacent shop. Bare perusal of paragraph 3(b) of the ejectment petition would reveal that all necessary ingredients of the ground of bonafide requirement have been pleaded. 10. As regards proof, landlord’s son is admittedly carrying on business in the shop adjacent to the demised shop since the year 1991 i.e. for 20 years. Obviously he has developed his business there and has goodwill of the business and has cultivated his customers for carrying on business in the said shop. In these circumstances, he cannot be asked to shift his business to the two shops lying vacant at Patiala Road, Jind. As rightly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner, landlord is the best judge of his needs. In the instant case, the requirement of landlord is bonafide because demised shop is adjacent to the shop in which the landlord’s son is already carrying on business for the last more than two decades. It has come in evidence that the existing shop with the landlord’s son is not sufficient to store sanitary goods. The contention that he is storing goods in the rooms on the first floor does not help the tenantpetitioner because landlord’s son is doing so out of necessity and compulsion. He has no other way out to store the said goods on the ground floor. It rather depicts the bonafide requirement of the demised premises for using the same for storing and running business of sanitary goods. The landlord has pleaded that the both the shops would be joined by removing the intervening wall. Thus, need of the landlord is bonafide. 11. It may be added that the disputed shop was let out to Tarsem Chand father of the petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3 in the year 1970. Ejectment petition no. 3 of 2008 on the ground of personal necessity was filed 38 years after the creation of the tenancy. It has also come in evidence that the landlord got vacated adjacent shop, in which his son is now carrying on business, in the year 1991. Even thereafter, the landlord did not seek ejectment from the demised shop on the ground of necessity for another 17 years. It has also come in evidence that the landlord got vacated adjacent shop, in which his son is now carrying on business, in the year 1991. Even thereafter, the landlord did not seek ejectment from the demised shop on the ground of necessity for another 17 years. However, now landlord’s son has established his business and needs more accommodation to carry on the business and therefore, the landlord sought ejectment on this ground from the demised shop. It shows that requirement of the landlord is bonafide. 12. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that rent was increased in the years 1994, 1999 and 2005 would not show that the need of the landlord is not bonafide. Lastly according to the version of the tenant, rent was increased on 1.5.2005 i.e. more than 3½ years before the filing of the ejectment petition on 3.12.2008. 13. Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner to contend that need of the landlord is not bonafide are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the case of Gullabbai (supra), the landlord came into possession of alternative accommodation during pendency of the appeal and the same was considered to decide bonafide requirement of the landlord. In the case of Jagdish Singh (supra), landlord failed to establish its bonafide needs. It failed to establish as to how the existing space had fallen short. In the instant case, landlord has established that existing shop with the landlord’s son is now not sufficient for his business. In the case of Nand Kishore (supra), the landlady let out adjacent shop during the pendency of eviction suit. So, all these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. On the contrary, the question of bonafide requirement of the demised premises by the landlord is more a question of fact than a question of law and therefore, the same has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case keeping in view the evidence led therein. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that both the Authorities below have rightly found concurrently that the landlord needs the demised premises for the business of his son. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that both the Authorities below have rightly found concurrently that the landlord needs the demised premises for the business of his son. The said concurrent finding is not shown to be based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence nor it is shown to be suffering from any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition which is therefore, dismissed. ------------------