JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.7.2012 rendered in Rent Appeal 81 - S/14 of 2009 by the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" for convenience sake) filed a petition u/s 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioner - tenant (hereinafter referred to as the "tenant" for convenience sake). According to the landlord, he alongwith his brothers is owner of three-storey building known as "Chauhan Building", Sector-4, New Shimla and Vinay Sharma is tenant of one set comprising of three bed-rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, two bathrooms-WCs, one kitchen, one lobby and balcony on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/-. According to the oral family settlement, the tenanted premises fell in the share of landlord. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground that he was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month with effect from 1.11.2007 till the date of filing of the petition and the tenanted premises were also required bona fide by the landlord for his personal use due to his transfer from Solan to Shimla. He wanted to shift his family to Shimla for which accommodation was required. According to the landlord, he was not occupying any residential accommodation as owner or otherwise in the urban area at Shimla town and that the landlord has not vacated any such building within five years of the filing of the petition. The eviction of the tenant was also sought on the ground that he has constructed a residential building at Kamla Nagar, Shimla after taking the present premises on rent from the landlord. 2. The tenant filed a detailed reply to the petition. According to the reply, the rent of the premises was Rs. 2000/- per month. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month with effect from 1.11.2007. It is stated that the tenant has paid the entire rent with effect from 30.4.2008 at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. The tenant has denied that he has built and acquired vacant possession of residential premises within the urban area of Shimla and has constructed more than one residential premises at Kamla Nagar, Shimla. It is stated that the tenant has paid the entire rent with effect from 30.4.2008 at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. The tenant has denied that he has built and acquired vacant possession of residential premises within the urban area of Shimla and has constructed more than one residential premises at Kamla Nagar, Shimla. He has also denied that the residential accommodation so built and acquired by the tenant is sufficient for his requirement. He has denied that the mutual settlement between the landlord and his brothers. 3. Learned Rent Controller framed issues on 24.10.2008. He has ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement of the landlord on 27.11.2009. The tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. He dismissed the same on 16.7.2012. 4. Mr. Y.P. Sood has vehemently argued that his client was not in arrears of rent. He has also argued that the premises were not required by the landlord bona fide. He has also argued that the landlord has failed to prove the partition. 5. Mr. Satyen Vaidya has supported the judgments passed by both the courts below. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and records carefully. 7. Mr. Chander Shekhar has appeared as AW-1. According to him, he was working as Patwari, Patwar Circle Sanjauli since 2006. Sh. Vinay Sharma was owner of part of khasra number 921. Vinay Sharma was also owner of khasra number 1206/963 measuring 152 square meters in village Chakaryal. Houses exist in village Chakaryal. Few of the houses were newly constructed and few of the houses were old. The area abuts the municipal limits. He has also proved on record copy of jamabandi Ex. AW-1/A and Ex. AW-1/B. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Chakaryal area falls in rural area and it falls outside the municipal limits. 8. AW-2 Jag Jiwan has deposed that he was working as Assistant Controller Finance in H.R.T.C. Card No. 0038769 was issued in the name of landlord. It was valid with effect from 31.12.2008 to 30.12.2009. It was issued for one year. He has proved on record copy of card exhibit AW-2/8. 9. AW-3 Ved Ram Verma has deposed that Miss. Ishani Chauhan was student of 10th standard in M.R.A. D.A.V. Senior secondary School, By-Pass Road, Solan. It was valid with effect from 31.12.2008 to 30.12.2009. It was issued for one year. He has proved on record copy of card exhibit AW-2/8. 9. AW-3 Ved Ram Verma has deposed that Miss. Ishani Chauhan was student of 10th standard in M.R.A. D.A.V. Senior secondary School, By-Pass Road, Solan. He has proved on record receipt of monthly fee Ex. AW-3/A. 10. AW-4 Lachhmi Chand has proved the transfer order of the landlord dated 14.8.2008 Ex. AW-4/A. According to him, the landlord has joined at Shimla on 14.8.2008. In his cross examination, he has deposed that the landlord has applied for official accommodation. But volunteered that he has not brought the record. 11. AW-5 Ram Parkash Chauhan is the landlord. According to him, they are three owners of the building comprising of basement, ground floor and first floor. There are two sets on first floor. One was with the landlord and second set was with his brother. The set owned by him, was in possession of the tenant Vinay Sharma comprising of three bedrooms, two toilets, one bathroom, one kitchen, balcony and drawing-cum-dining room. He has proved a rough sketch Ex. AW-5/A. The premises were let out on rent in the month of April, 2005 at monthly rent of Rs. 4000/-. The tenant has paid the rent upto November, 2007 and thereafter no rent has been paid. The tenant used to pay him the rent either by cash or by crediting the rent in his account. He was working in the Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment as Programme Officer. His job was transferable. He required the premises in possession of the tenant for his personal requirement. He was transferred from Solan to Shimla on 14.8.2008. He has joined his duties at Shimla on 14.8.2008. He did not own any house in Shimla. He was residing in official accommodation at Solan. He was commuting between Solan and Shimla daily since he was not in possession of any accommodation at Shimla. He used to spend Rs. 2500- 2600 per month. Before Vinay Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Goel was the tenant of the premises at the monthly rate of Rs. 4200/-. The rent agreement was executed between Mukesh Kumar Goel and him vide Ex. AW-5/B. He has also placed on record copy of order passed by the Rent Controller Ex. He used to spend Rs. 2500- 2600 per month. Before Vinay Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Goel was the tenant of the premises at the monthly rate of Rs. 4200/-. The rent agreement was executed between Mukesh Kumar Goel and him vide Ex. AW-5/B. He has also placed on record copy of order passed by the Rent Controller Ex. PW-5/C. When he has given the premises to the tenant, it was outside the municipal limits and for this reason the agreement was not executed with him. He was still residing in Government accommodation. He could retain it for two months. He has sought special permission up to 31.5.2009, which has elapsed. The Department has issued a direction to him on 29.5.2009 to vacate the same vide Mark 'B'. He has two children. The elder daughter was studying in Dev Smaj College, Chandigarh. She was admitted at Chandigarh due to lack of better facilities at Solan. In case he gets the vacant possession of the premises he can impart education to his daughters at Shimla. He also wanted to provide education at Shimla due to better coaching facilitates. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the premises were constructed in the year 2000. He has denied the suggestion that the rent was Rs. 2000/- per month. He has also denied the suggestion that the tenant has paid the rent upto November, 2007. He has admitted that he was directed by the Court to restore the water supply to the tenant. He has also admitted that he has not restored the water supply. According to him, the coaching and educational institutions are better at Shimla vis-a-vis Solan. He has denied the suggestion that the rent agreement was executed with the tenant and he has not produced the same willingly. He has denied the suggestion that he has decided to provide education to his daughter at Chandigarh. 12. Tenant Vinay Sharma has appeared as RW-1. He has admitted that he was tenant since 2005. According to him, one of the set was lying vacant after the relations between the brothers were strained. He has deposed that the rent agreement was executed between the landlord and him at the time of his induction as a tenant, according to which the monthly rent was Rs. 2000/-. The agreement was executed in the presence of Ved Parkash RW 2 and Sh. Pradeep Sharma. He has deposed that the rent agreement was executed between the landlord and him at the time of his induction as a tenant, according to which the monthly rent was Rs. 2000/-. The agreement was executed in the presence of Ved Parkash RW 2 and Sh. Pradeep Sharma. He has paid rent upto December 2008. The receipt was not issued by the landlord. The landlord has disconnected the water connection after receiving the rent. According to him, the landlord did not require the set. He has admitted in his cross-examination that when he was inducted as a tenant, the landlord was posted at Solan. He has admitted that there are two sets on first floor and he is occupying one set. Volunteered that in second set, brother of landlord was residing which was now vacant for the last 1-2 years. He has admitted that both the brothers were owners of the building. He has denied the suggestion that he has not paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month since 1.11.2007. Volunteered that he has paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month till December 2008, but the landlord has not issued any receipt. He has demanded the receipt. He has admitted that he has not issued any notice to this effect nor he has deposited the rent in the court. 13. RW-2 Ved Parkash has deposed that the rent agreement was executed between the landlord and tenant in the year 2005. According to him, monthly rent was Rs. 2000/-. He was one of the marginal witnesses of rent agreement. According to him, one set was lying vacant, which earlier was in occupation of the brother of the landlord. 14. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove is that the premises were rented out to Vinay Sharma in the year 2005. According to AW-5, the premises were let out at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month. The tenant has paid the rent upto 1.11.2007. The same premises were earlier let out to one Sh. Mukesh Kumar Goel at the rate of Rs. 4200/-. The agreement is Ex. AW-5/B. The orders of the Rent Controller are Ex. AW-5/C. According to the tenant, as per agreement, the rent was Rs. 2000/- per month and not Rs. 4000/-. According to the reply filed by the tenant, the rent was paid up to the 30.4.2008. Mukesh Kumar Goel at the rate of Rs. 4200/-. The agreement is Ex. AW-5/B. The orders of the Rent Controller are Ex. AW-5/C. According to the tenant, as per agreement, the rent was Rs. 2000/- per month and not Rs. 4000/-. According to the reply filed by the tenant, the rent was paid up to the 30.4.2008. But in his statement it has come that he has paid rent upto December 2008. RW-1 has not proved agreement which according to him was executed between him and landlord in the year 2005. Since no primary evidence has been led to this effect, statement of RW-2 Ved Parkash can also not be believed. It has come on record that earlier the same premises were let out at the rate of Rs. 4200/- per month to Sh. Mukesh Kumar Goel. It thus can safely be presumed that the rent could not be less than Rs. 4000/- per month. Tenant while appearing as RW-1 has deposed that he has paid the rent to the landlord but he has not issued any receipt. He has admitted categorically that neither he issued any notice to the landlord nor he deposited the rent with the Rent Controller. Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month with effect from 1.11.2007. 15. Now, the Court will advert to the question whether the premises are required bone fide by the landlord. While appearing as AW-5 the landlord has deposed that when the tenant was inducted, he was posted at Solan. He has now been transferred to Shimla by transfer order dated 14.8.2008. The transfer order has duly been proved by a AW-2 Lachhmi Chand. It has also been proved that the landlord commute from Solan to Shimla and back daily and his card number issued by the HRTC was 0038769 as per Ex. AW-2/A. He was residing at Solan in official accommodation. He was directed to vacate the same. In case he has to retain the same accommodation, he has to pay penal rent. He has already joined his duties at Shimla on 14.8.2008. One of his daughters has to go to Chandigarh for higher education since according to the landlord coaching facilities were lacking at Solan. According to the landlord, the coaching and educational facilities are better at Shimla vis-a-vis Solan. He has already joined his duties at Shimla on 14.8.2008. One of his daughters has to go to Chandigarh for higher education since according to the landlord coaching facilities were lacking at Solan. According to the landlord, the coaching and educational facilities are better at Shimla vis-a-vis Solan. He wanted the accommodation for his own use and occupation for better education of his two daughters. It has come on record that the landlord didn't own any building within the municipal area and he has not vacated the same within a period of five years. He has to spend Rs. 2500 -2600 per month for going and coming from Shimla to Solan. 16. Mr. Y.P. Sood has vehemently argued that one of the set was lying vacant on the same floor which earlier was in possession of the brother of the landlord. This plea has not been taken by the tenant in the reply filed to the petition. The tenant has only made a self-serving statement while appearing as RW-1 that one set was also lying vacant on the same floor. 17. Mr. Y.P. Sood has also argued that the landlord has not proved the partition. The landlord has stated that three brothers were the owners of the building and on the basis of the oral partition; the set which was in possession of the tenant has come to his share. 18. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble supreme court in R.C. Tamrakar and Another Vs. Nidi Lekha, (2001) 8 SCC 431 have held that the landlord himself is the best judge of what his requirements are and neither tenant nor court may endeavour to show the landlord how he should adjust himself. Their Lordships have held as under: 10. Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else landlord could have adjusted himself. 19. Their Lordships of the number Supreme Court in P.S. Pareed Kaka and Others Vs. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else landlord could have adjusted himself. 19. Their Lordships of the number Supreme Court in P.S. Pareed Kaka and Others Vs. Shafee Ahmed Saheb, (2004) 5 SCC 241 have held that where on facts, it can be shown that the landlord is put to hardship by not using his own premises and the tenants on the other hand are not put to hardship by being evicted, the need of landlord is bona fide. 20. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Rai Tanwani and Another Vs. Uttam Chand and Another, (2004) 8 SCC 490 have explained the expression bona fide as under: 15. Recently, in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta this Court in a detailed judgment, dealing with this aspect, analysed the concept of bona fide requirement and said that the requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord. The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a question to himself-whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. We do not think that we can usefully add anything to the exposition of law of requirement for self-occupation than what has been already stated in the three precedents. 21. Mr. Y.P. Sood has also argued that the courts below have not taken into consideration the first and second proviso to section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Needless to add that the tenant has not led any foundation in the pleadings for the same. Accordingly in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The tenant is ordered to be evicted from the premises within a period of three months and to deposit the arrears of rent, if already not deposited, within a period of 30 days from today. Accordingly in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The tenant is ordered to be evicted from the premises within a period of three months and to deposit the arrears of rent, if already not deposited, within a period of 30 days from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.