JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-tenant Purkha Chand, has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.2011 of learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Hanumangarh allowing landlord's Appeal No. 78/2008, Shiv Pratap v. Purkha Chand , preferred against the order dated 5.9.2008 passed by Rent Tribunal (Civil Judge) Sr. Division, Hanumangarh, whereby the petition (Petition No. 2/2007) filed by the respondent- landlord, seeking eviction of tenant-respondent. Purkha Chand, came to be rejected in respect of suit shops situated at Indira Chowk, Hanumangarh. 2. The Appellate Rent Tribunal had reversed the finding of the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 5.9.2008 dismissing the eviction suit filed by the landlord. The eviction was sought by the landlord-respondent. Shiv Pratao on the ground of bona fide need for his two sons, namely, Ghanshyam and Umesh. The landlord claimed that he needed the suit shops in question for setting up of business of 'Manihari' for his elder son, Ghanshyam and Laboratory for his younger son, namely, Umesh. The defendant-tenant is carrying on the business of selling bamboos in the two shops in question, which in initially were let out to him in the year 1961 for a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- each, total Rs. 30/- per month. 3. Learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in its impugned order dated 29.9.2011 has discussed the rival contentions in para 9, from which it appears that the landlord had a business complex in which various shops were/are there. The two shops in question as per the map produced before this Court of Annex. 17 to the writ petition (Page 141 of the paper book) shows that the two disputed adjacent shops are measuring 12 x 12 and 12 x 10' respectively, in which the defendant- tenant is carrying on the business of selling bamboos in the name of style of M/s. Satyanaran Pwan Kumar. The north-west road in front of these two shops is called as 'Indira Chowk Road' and east-southern road is called as 'Sabji Mandi Road'. On the front of the said property, it appears that one 'Shaikh General Store on the western side is thee, measuring 12 x 55' of the premises. Behind the Shaikh General Store, the residential house of the landlord is there. 4. On the front of the said property, it appears that one 'Shaikh General Store on the western side is thee, measuring 12 x 55' of the premises. Behind the Shaikh General Store, the residential house of the landlord is there. 4. While passing the eviction decree in favour of landlord, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in its order dated 29.9.2011 has even observed that while the bona fide need of the landlord's sons was properly established before the Rent Tribunal, however, the same was not considered by the learned Rent Tribunal. The landlord also offered back side shops, which became available upon eviction at the relevant of time during this litigation, however, the defendant-tenant refused to take those shops instead suit shops on the ground that one of the sons, namely, Umesh was already carrying on the business of selling mobile phones in one of backside shop measuring 10' x 9' in the name of style of M/s. Umesh Mobile Shop as shown in the said map. 5. Mr. R.R. Nagori, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant also urged that alternative shops had become available to the landlord during this litigation and therefore, the landlord could have satisfied the need of his sons by establishing their respective business, as claimed in the eviction petition, in these two shops and therefore, could not seek eviction of the suit shops from the petitioner-tenant as he (landlord) gave two shops to other persons on rent. There is no finding of unsuitability of these shops for the two sons of the landlord, which became available during the course of present litigation two sons of the respondent-landlord. 6. Per contra, Mr. Varun Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- landlord submitted that it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord as to in which shop he should have satisfied the bona fide need of his sons and he could not seek eviction of tenant upon availability of the two other shops during the course of present litigation. He further submitted that although the respondent-landlord offered such vacant shops to the petitioner-tenant, but the petitioner-tenant did not take that exchange offer and continued to occupy the suit shops in question. He further submitted that although the respondent-landlord offered such vacant shops to the petitioner-tenant, but the petitioner-tenant did not take that exchange offer and continued to occupy the suit shops in question. During the course of evidence the landlord has clearly established the bona fide need of setting up of business for his two sons, namely, 'Manihari' business for his elder son, Ghanshyam and Laboratory for his younger son, namely, Umesh, who said to be qualified lab technician in that line. But, since the tenant did not take alternative shops, they had to be given back to somebody else. He further submitted that findings of facts of bona fide need arrived at by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal even reversing the findings of learned Rent Tribunal, do not require any interference under the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is well settled by a catena of judgment by this Court as well as Apex Court that the landlord himself is the best Judge about his requirements and it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms in this regard, nor the Court can substitute its own wisdom or opinion about such requirement of land. If the bona fide requirement is established , the eviction decree is envisaged under the law. The Appellate Rent Tribunal which of course, had the powers to reverse the findings of Rent Tribunal also within its jurisdiction, has discussed the entire relevant evidence in its impugned order and in para 9 has dealt with the contention raised by the defendant-tenant, before this Court in correct perspective. The eviction decree granted by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal does not require any interference much less in narrow jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The two adjacent shops of which eviction is sought in the present case were found adequate for setting up business for the two sons of landlord. It appears from the record that the landlord had even offered two alternative shops to the defendant-tenant, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, were only godown and therefore, not suitable, but the tenant did not like to shift his business in those two alternative shops/godowns. 9. It appears from the record that the landlord had even offered two alternative shops to the defendant-tenant, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, were only godown and therefore, not suitable, but the tenant did not like to shift his business in those two alternative shops/godowns. 9. Be that as it may the choice as to whether to shift or not, was that of the tenant and for that the landlord cannot be faulted or at least he cannot be said to lacking bona fides, if he has sought eviction of two shops in question even while offering other the two shops/godown to the defendant-tenant, of which is absence of the same being not taken by the present defendant-tenant, were let out to other persons. This finding of facts, are given by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in the impugned order. This Court finds no perversity in the same and finding cannot be said to be bereft of evidence. 10. It is well settled that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitutional specially in the special laws like the Rent Control Act, has to be very narrow and unless glaring perversity is shown in the impugned order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal upon reversal or even concurrent decisions of the Rent Tribunals, the same findings cannot be interfered with, Merely because, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has reversed the findings of Rent Tribunal it does not per se becomes a fit case of interference always, unless the Appellate Rent Tribunal has grossly eared or has given the findings of facts is bereft of any evidence in this regard. The assailing of such findings on the grounds like raised in the present case that there is no finding of unsuitability of shops for the landlord or that the landlord should adjust his bona fide needs in the alternative shops becoming available to him, are not sufficient for interference in such findings of learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, which essentially remain the findings of facts and are binding even on this Court. 11. This Court in the case of Ahmed Farooq and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1640 , has held as under: "20. 11. This Court in the case of Ahmed Farooq and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1640 , has held as under: "20. In view of settled legal position, it is for the landlord to choose the premises which would suit his requirement and it hardly lies with the tenant to dictate the terms to landlord and suggest the landlord to satisfy his business need with available premises, which may or may not belong to the person for whose need the eviction is sought. The trial Court in the present case at page 10 had clearly found that this first floor is not at all suitable for setting up the crockery business for appellant No. 2. 21. However, the learned first appellate Court not emphasising much about the said first floor space, reversed the eviction decree on the ground that a triangular shop in Abdulla Building 'B' has become available to the father of the appellant No. 2 - Abdulla Farooq, which fact was subsequently brought on record by way of application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. filed by the defendant tenant and since the said shop No. 1 had already became available in the year 1990, on which point learned counsel for the plaintiff landlord differred and submitted that vacant position of the said shop was only received after execution proceedings only in 1993 and after his retirement as TTE from the Railways in 1992 the plaintiff landlord Ahmed Farooq himself wanted to set up his own travel agency business in the name of M/s. Jodhpur Travels, but the learned first appellate Court held on the basis of evidence of RW-4 Kailash Chand Jain, employee of M/s Jodhpur Travels that since on the receipt book/bill book "Shri Mahaveerai Namah" was handwritten on some carbon copies of Bills, vide Ex. D, RW-1/1, which would indicate that business in the said premises was carried on by a person belonging to Jain community as against the Muslim community to which the plaintiff landlord belonged in the present case, therefore the appellate COurt wrongly concluded that the appellant No. 1 himself was not carrying business in the name and style of M/s Jodhpur Travels and in fact the said shop No. 1 after eviction by Danmal was let out again to one Mohan Lal Jain. This premise taken by the learned first appellate Court is wholly erroneous in the opinion of this Court. Merely because in the cross-examination of RW-4 - Kailash Jain has stated that there was handwritten inscription "Shri Mahaveerai Namah" on Ex. DR. W. 1/1 - On one and two leafs of the Bill Book, even though name of Ahmed Farooq with Jodhpur Travels is printed and this inscription was not printed at all, without clearly stating that Ahmed Farooq has no connection with M/s. Jodhpur Travels, as against the documentary evidence led by appellant No. 1 - Ahmed Farooq for registration of M/s Jodhpur Travels with the Government Authorities like Shop and Establishment Act ETC., the leraned first appellate Court could not have concluded that appellant-plaintiff No. 1 was not doing his own business in the said shop No. 1, which had become available in the year 1990/1993. Even assuming for argument sake that appellant plaintiff - Ahmed Farooq instead of doing his own business of Travel Agency had entered into any business arrangement with one Mohan Lal Jain, though such an inference is not called for in the present case, even then it does not lie with the defendant tenant to contend that such business was not belonging to appellant No. 1 himself and said shop No. 1 may be deemed to be available for satisfying the need of setting up the crockery business for appellant No. 2 - Abdulla Farooq, son of Ahmed Farook, once landlord says that such shop is not suitable for setting up his crockery business. The learned first appellate Court in para 33 of its judgment itself has ultimately not relied upon the statement of RW-4 - Kailash Chand Jain finding him to be making contradictory statements. 22. As aforesaid, it is for the landlord to adjudge and satisfy his need and the said shop No. 1 which is triangular in shape and of awkward measurements, as given above, cannot be said to be appropriate and suitable shop available to the landlord as against the suit shop measuring 15' x 20', which is in possession of the defendant tenant situated in same area and road on the opposite side. 23. 23. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court has apparently fallen in error in substituting its own wisdom and decision for that of the landlord, who alone is the best Judge in this regard as held in various decisions discussed above and the learned trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit upon establishing of the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord. 24. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the appellant landlords deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed and answering the substantial questions of law framed as above in favour of the plaintiff landlords and against the respondent-defendant-tenants and setting aside the appellate Courts's judgment and decree dated 3.12.1995, the eviction decree of the learned trial Court dated 28.3.1987 is restored. The second appeal of plaintiff is allowed with no order as to costs." 12. This Court in the case of Chandra Prakash v. Hasti Mal, reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1267 , has held as under: "8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present second appeal filed by the defendant-tenant has no force and no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The finding of bona fide need of the landlord is a finding of fact. 9. Normally, evidence on record is not re-appreciated in the second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. which cannot be made a third round of trial in such rent control and eviction matters. Unless the findings of the Courts below are shown to be ex-facie perverse and palpably erroneous, normally such findings of finds do not require any interference by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. It has been well settled by umpteen number of judgments of this Court as sell 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. 10. The landlord is the best Judge of his need in this regard. 10. The landlord is the best Judge of his need in this regard. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant that since the son of the plaintiff, namely, Sanjay is also an income tax payee and belongs to a rich family and is not expected to do cloth business, is not at all acceptable. It is for the landlord and his son to decide as to what business they are going to set up in the disputed premises. The defendant himself has been admittedly doing the cloth business in that shop and if by renovating the same and converting into a proper showroom. the son of the plaintiff respondent wants to open cloth showroom, there is no lack of bona fides or reasons to disbelieve such a contention of the plaintiff. The findings regarding bona fide need of the landlord are findings of facts and unless they are palpably wrong and 11. The tenant is not the best Judge of the need of the landlord, but on the other hand, the plaintiff 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. LR's of Balwant Singh (ii) S.B.CSA No. 132/2009, LR's of Prakash v. Poornima, decided on 11.5.2011 (iii) S.B.CSA No. 174/2006, Abdul Salam v. Arvind Kumar, decided on 17.1.2009 (iv) S.B.CSA No. 159/2005, Raj Kumar v. Shevi Bai, decided on 22.1.2009 reported in 2009 (3) RLW 2663 (v) S.B.CSA No. 203/2010, Om Prakash Bhati v. LR's of Har Kanwar, decided on 11.8.2011 . 12. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima, S.B.CSA No. 132 of 2009, decided on 11.5.2011 also emphasised that landlord was the best Judge of his needs in the following terms. "5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. 12. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima, S.B.CSA No. 132 of 2009, decided on 11.5.2011 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 bona fide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial Court and as per the catena 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 bona fide 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 S.T.D. P.C.O. 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." 13. This Court in the case of Denzil Najrath v. LR's of Balwant Singh and 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 bona fide 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. 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 purpose. 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 bona fide 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." 14. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant are distinguishable on facts and therefore, are of no avail to the appellants. 15. In the present case, this Court is fully satisfied that on the basis of pleadings and statements, which were read before this Courts also, the Courts below were perfectly justified in arriving at the findings of bona fide and reasonableness of the need of plaintiff for setting up cloth business of his son Sanjay. 16. Consequently, the present second appeal of the defendant-tenant deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. This Court in the case of Ajaib Singh and Ors. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., New Delhi reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1281 , has held as under: "14. 16. Consequently, the present second appeal of the defendant-tenant deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. This Court in the case of Ajaib Singh and Ors. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., New Delhi reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1281 , has held as under: "14. A bare perusal of the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondents-tenant indicates that the facts of those judgments are absolutely distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In one case, tin shed was installed by the tenant outside the rented premises, and such temporary tin shed could not be compared with the nature of the material alterations done in the present case. In the present case, the tenant has made material alterations in the suit premises/shop without permission or consent of the landlord, referred to supra. Similarly, in Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Smt. Supyar Bai (Supra), the nature of construction raised was absolutely of temporary nature, which could be removed at any time, however, such facts are not obtaining in the case in hand. Therefore, both these judgments cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant are of no avail to him. 15. On an overall reading of the reasons given by the learned lower appellate Court, this Court is satisfied that the findings returned the learned lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.11.1990 are perverse and not sustainable. The Suit seeking eviction deserves to be decreed on both the grounds as aforesaid. 16. Accordingly, the present second appeal filed by the appellants -plaintiffs is allowed and substantial questions of law, framed above, are answered in favour of plaintiffs-landlord and against the respondent-defendant-tenant. No costs. The present second appeal itself has been allowed, therefore, application filed by the respondent-tenant during the course of arguments, being IA No. 11336/2012 is rejected." 14. Accordingly in view of above the present writ petition of the petitioner-tenant deserve to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The eviction decree granted by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Hanumangarh dated 29.9.2011 is upheld. 15. Accordingly in view of above the present writ petition of the petitioner-tenant deserve to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The eviction decree granted by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Hanumangarh dated 29.9.2011 is upheld. 15. The petitioner-tenant shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shops (two shops) in question to the respondent-landlord within a period on One Year from today i.e. on or before 16.1.2014 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 1,000/- per month commencing from January, 2013. The arrears of mesne profit shall be cleared within three months from today and the petitioner-tenant will further continue to pay the mesne profits each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent-landlord till the vacant possession is handed over to the respondent-landlord and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of one year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The petitioner-tenant shall also clear, if not already paid and all the arrears of the rent or mesne profit within three months from today, otherwise the amount shall bear simple interest @ 9% p.a. and the executed Court may quantify such amount and recover the same as a money decree. The amount already deposited, may be disbursed to the respondent-landlord forthwith. The petitioner-tenant shall also not sub-let assign or part with the possession if the suit shops or nay part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third part interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same, if so created, would be treated as void. The petitioner-tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial Court within one month and one copy thereof alongwith affidavit, this Court. It is made clear that the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over or rent or mesne profit are not paid to the respondent-landlord within a period of one year from today, besides expeditious execution of the decree in the normal course, the respondent-landlord shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Copy of this order be sent to both the Rent Tribunals and both the parties concerned forthwith. No costs.Petition Dismissed. *******