JUDGMENT : 1. - The petitioners, namely, Yatan Chaddha and Jagjeet Singh, have filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the order of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar dated 27.09.2010 (Annex.8) allowing tenant-respondent No.1- Kalicharan's appeal No.10/09-Kalicharan v. Yatan Chaddha & Anr. , reversing the eviction decree dated 14.07.2009 passed by Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar decreeing the petitioners' eviction Petition No.79/2005-Yatan Chaddha & Anr. v. Kalicharan , inter-alia, on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord to start their property business and engineering consultancy profession in the suit shop measuring 8' x 20'.9''. 2. The respondent-tenant, Kalicharan had expired during the pendency of the present writ petition. Upon an application submitted by the petitioners being IA No.2109/12 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legal representatives of deceased respondent, Kalicharan were taken on record vide the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by Registrar (Administration) of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners (landlord) urged that the findings of the bonafide need for the landlord, have been reversed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal on wholly erroneous grounds, namely, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has substituted his own opinion at Page 3/7 of the impugned judgment that it is not reasonably possible for these two persons/landlords to carry on the business of property dealer and engineering consultancy as alleged by them in the shop measuring 8' x 20'.9'' only; and secondly, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has further erred in holding that after the purchase of shop in question by one of them, Jagjeet Singh on 17.03.1990, he has executed a fresh rent-agreement with the same tenant, Kalicharan in April, 1990, who was already occupying the shop in question as tenant and it was impractical as per the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that if he needed the shop in question for carrying on his own engineering consultancy profession with Yatan Chaddha for property business, he would have purchased some other property, which was not tenanted. This assumption of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is erroneous, learned counsel for the landlord urged. 4. On the other hand, Dr. This assumption of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is erroneous, learned counsel for the landlord urged. 4. On the other hand, Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent - tenant urged that the findings of bonafideness of requirement are the findings of facts and have rightly been arrived at by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, while reversing the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar; and therefore, the same do not require any interference by this Court under writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is well settled by a catena of judgments by this Court as well as Apex Court that landlord 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 bonafide requirement is established, the eviction decree is envisaged under the law. 6. This Court in the case of Ahmed Farooq & Ors. v. Harish Chandra & 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. 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 CPC 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 differed 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 R.W.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, R.W.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 R.W.4 - Kailash Jain has stated that there was handwritten inscription "Shri Mahaveerai Namah" on Ex.DR. 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 R.W.4 - Kailash Jain has stated that there was handwritten inscription "Shri Mahaveerai Namah" on Ex.DR. W.1/1 - on one & two leafs of the Bill Book, even though name of Ahmed Farooq with Jodhpur Travels is printed & 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 & Establishment Act etc., the learned 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 R.W.4 - Kailash Chand Jain finding him to be making contradictory statements. 22. As aforesaid, it is for the landlord to adjudge & 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'x20', which is in possession of the defendant tenant situated in same area & 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 bonafide 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 & answering the substantial questions of law framed as above in favour of the plaintiff landlords & against the respondent-defendant tenants and setting aside the appellate court'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." 7. 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 bonafide 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 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. 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 show-room, the son of the plaintiff respondent wants to open cloth showroom, there is no lack of bonafides or reasons to disbelieve such a contention of the plaintiff. 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. 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. 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. 12. 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. (v) SBCSA No. 203/2010 - Om Prakash Bhati v. LRs. of Har Kanwar decided on 11.8.2011. 12. 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." 13. 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. 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." 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 Court also, the courts below were perfectly justified in arriving at the findings of bonafide 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." 8. This Court in the case of Ajaib Singh & Ors. v. Delhi Cloth & 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." 8. This Court in the case of Ajaib Singh & Ors. v. Delhi Cloth & 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 learned counsel for the respondent-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." 9. In the present case, the Appellate Rent Tribunal while reversing the eviction decree has fallen into apparent error in wrongly assuming that it is not practical and reasonable for these two landlords, Jagjeet Singh and Yatan Chaddha to carry on their business of property dealer and engineering consultancy in the shop let out to the tenant, Kalicharan measuring 8' x 20'.9''. It is not the opinion of the Court which matters but the opinion of the landlord himself or themselves to adjust their requirements in the given shop. This Court does not see anything impractical or unreasonable in these two businesses/profession being carried out in the shop, with the measurement of shop given above. Such business, which is being sought to be established by the petitioners, even does not require keeping of any goods in the shop in question and same can very well be carried out in the shop or a room measuring 8' x 20'.9''. Therefore, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has fallen into error in assuming otherwise and reversing the eviction decree on that basis. The second assumption of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that the purchaser, Jagjeet Singh, one of the petitioners, should not have purchased the suit premises, which was already tenanted in favour of same tenant, Kalicharan, is another erroneous assumption of the Appellate Rent Tribunal. With great respects, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal was not even within its jurisdiction to assume such things; and it is open for the parties to purchase the premises at their own free will and no such provisions are there in the Rent Control law, which restricts purchase of a tenanted property. 10. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has also erred in holding that on account of this purchase of tenanted premises, there was no bonafide requirement of the landlord, Jagjeet Singh. Such assumption was not called for at all, to say the least. 11. Accordingly, in view of above, the present writ petition of the landlords deserves to be allowed and the same is, accordingly, allowed; and the impugned order of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner dated 27.09.2010 is set aside and the eviction decree dated 14.07.2009 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar is restored. 12. The respondents-tenant or his LR's, who are now in possession, shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop in question to the petitioners-(landlords) within a period of nine months from today i.e. on or before 31st October, 2013, and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2000/- per month commencing from January, 2013. 12. The respondents-tenant or his LR's, who are now in possession, shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop in question to the petitioners-(landlords) within a period of nine months from today i.e. on or before 31st October, 2013, and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2000/- per month commencing from January, 2013. The arrears of mesne profit shall be cleared within three months from today and the respondents-tenant will further continue to pay the mesne profits each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the petitioners till the vacant possession is handed over to the petitioners and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of nine months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondents-tenants 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 executing Court may quantify such amount and recover the same as a money decree. The amount already deposited, may be disbursed to the landlords forthwith. The respondents-tenants shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop 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, if so created, would be treated as void. The respondents-tenants 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 petitioners-landlord within a period of nine months from today, besides expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the petitioners-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. *******