JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant Ghanshyam being aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Civil Rent Appeal No.80/2008- Ghanshyam v. Srikrishna Bhati whereby the learned lower appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner - tenant Ghanshyam and affirmed the judgment and eviction decree dated 23.7.2008 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Rent Petition No.232/2005 - Sri Krishna Bhati v. Ghanshyam whereby the learned Rent Tribunal had allowed the application of the respondent - landlord for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of the respondent - landlord in respect of suit shop situated at Ward No.54, New Army, Family Quarters, Ajmer Road, Jodhpur. 2. By concurrent decrees of eviction, the learned Tribunals below had allowed the application for eviction filed by the landlord - respondent in respect of suit shop. The need claimed by the respondent landlord Sri Kishan Bhati was for his two sons Manish Bhati and Prashant Bhati. 3. Both the Tribunals below have found that the respondent - landlord had bonafide need for the suit shop in question and therefore, directed eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner - tenant Mr. Sudheer Sharma submitted that the respondent - landlord did not have bonafide need inasmuch as the landlord has given another shop on rent to another tenant and if the landlord was in need of the suit shop, he would not have given the other vacant shop on rent to a third party. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner - tenant has no force. The finding of bonafide need of the landlord is a finding of fact. 6. It has been well settled by umpteen number of judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of which are referred below that the tenant cannot dictate the terms as to how the landlord should adjust his need and whether he should do particular business in the particular manner or at a particular place or not. 7. The landlord is the best judge of his need in this regard. 7. The landlord is the best judge of his need in this regard. It is for the landlord and his sons to decide as to what business they are going to set up in the disputed premises. The findings regarding bonafide need of the landlord are findings of facts and unless they are palpably wrong and perverse, they do not require any interference by this Court in the second appeal. 8. The tenant is not the best judge of the need of the landlord, but on the other hand, the respondent - landlord himself is the best judge of his business need and tenant cannot dictate terms in this regard. In this regard, following judgments may be referred to: (i) 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217 - Denzil Nagrath v. LRs. of Balwant Singh (ii) SB CSA NO.132/2009 - LRs. of Prakash v. Poornima decided on 11.5.2011. (iii) SBCSA No.174/2006 - Abdul Salam v. Arvind Kumar decided on 17.1.2009 (iv) SBCSA No.159/2005 - Raj Kumar v. Shevi Bai decided on 22.1.2009 reported in 2009 (3) RLW 2663. (v) SBCSA No.203/2010 - Om Prakash Bhati v. LRs. of Har Kanwar decided on 11.8.2011. 9. 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. 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." 10. This Court in the case of Denzil Najrath v. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217 in which this Court held in para 6 as 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." 11. In the present case, this Court is fully satisfied that on the basis of pleadings, the Tribunals below were perfectly justified in arriving at the findings of bonafide and reasonableness of the need of respondent - landlord and no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be made in the impugned orders and decrees. 12. Consequently, the present writ petition of the petitioner - tenant deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. The petitioner -tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property viz. shop in question to the respondent-landlord within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 31st July, 2013 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 3,000/- per month commencing from January, 2013 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the judgment of eviction would become executable forthwith. The petitioner shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondent within two months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The 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 petitioner - tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within 15 days from today 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 to the respondent landlord within a period of two months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-landlord shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned Rent Tribunal below and both the parties forthwith.Petition Dismissed. *******