JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant petition stands directed against the judgment of 9.12.2015 rendered by the learned Appellate Authority-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Rent Appeal No. 1-S/14 of 2015, whereby it partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction rendered vis-à-vis the respondent herein by the learned Rent Controller Solan on 30.12.2014 in Rent petition No. 34/2 of 2011. 2. The petitioner/landlord claimed eviction from the demised premises of the respondent herein on the following grounds:- (a) The respondent falling into arrears of rent; (b) His bonafide requiring the demised premises for housing therein his granddaughters who stand averred to prosecute studies at Solan. 3. The petitioner also asserted therein of the demised premises standing also bonafidely required for his personal stay significantly for easing his inconvenience of traveling from his native place, Subathu to Solan and vice versa. 4. The learned Rent Controller on the issue relating to the respondent/tenant falling into arrears of rent returned findings in the affirmative also the learned Rent Controller on the apposite issue of the tenanted premises standing bonafidely required by the landlord for the averred purposes thereon returned findings in affirmation. However, the learned Appellate Authority in an appeal carried therefrom before it by the respondent/herein partly allowed the appeal and set aside order of his eviction from the demised premises. Standing aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this court. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends of his not pressing at this stage issue No.1 given the respondent/tenant depositing before the learned Rent Controller concerned the entire arrears of rent within the statutory period. However he contends of the findings returned by the learned Appellate Authority on issue No.2 warranting interference. 6. The learned Appellate Authority, had dispelled the sole testification of the petitioner /landlord wherein he had made communications in tandem with the apposite averments cast in the petition qua his holding a bonafide requirement of the relevant demised premises for enabling both his grand-daughters to stay thereat who extantly stand beset with inconvenience of traveling daily to Solan from Subathu and vice versa for prosecuting their studies at Solan also for facilitating his staying therein for reducing his traveling daily from Subathu to Solan and vice versa, on the sole reason of his not adducing any corroborative evidence thereto. Insistence by the learned Appellate Authority qua corroboration occurring vis-à-vis the sole testification of the petitioner/landlord is grossly inapt also for reason ascribed hereinafter has begotten the sequel of the impugned rendition standing stained with a vice of his excluding from consideration the relevant documentary evidence as exists on record in portrayal of the grand-daughters of the petitioner/landlord prosecuting studies at Solan. 7. Moreover the Appellate Authority has excluded from consideration the factum of the respondent in his concert to rid of sanctity the sole testification of the petitioner qua his bonafidely requiring the relevant premises for the purpose averred by him besides testified by him, not, making vigorous pronouncements in his testification qua the facet aforesaid rather his feigning ignorance qua the grand-daughters of the petitioner/landlord traveling daily from village Subathu to Solan located at a distance of 22 km from each other also his feigning ignorance qua theirs prosecuting studies at Solan whereupon contrarily an imperative inference sprouted qua the respondent tacitly accepting the relevant bonafide requirement of the demised premises by the petitioner for the averred purpose also thereupon an invincible inference spurred qua his not projecting a fierce contest to the relevant bonafide requirement of the petitioner/landlord of the demised premises rather his abandoning his contest qua the facet aforesaid. 8. The learned Appellate Authority by excluding the effect of the aforesaid relevant documentary evidence besides by excluding the effect of omission of concert of the respondent to project a fierce opposition to the relevant claim qua the demised premises of the petitioner/landlord by his eliciting the relevant records from the relevant institutions whereon the granddaughters of the petitioner prosecute studies whereupon the factum of the granddaughters of the petitioner prosecuting studies at Solan would stand belied, has hence committed a grave illegality also it by making an insistence upon adduction by the petitioner evidence in corroboration to his sole testimony whereas given the trite factum of the respondent not adducing vigorous evidence for undermining his testification qua his bonafidely requiring the demised premises begetting the sequel of his acquiescing to the claim of the petitioner/landlord has hence aggravated the impropriety imbuing his impugned rendition conspicuously when for reiteration an inference of the respondent waiving his contest to the relevant trite factum surges forth. 9. 9. Be that as it may the petitioner had disclosed in his petition qua his son and his family members holding occupation of his building located at Subathu, factum whereof remains uncontroverted by the respondent by his adducing cogent evidence in rebuttal thereto. Even if assumingly the petitioner/landlord holds a residential building at Subathu also if assumingly it is not in occupation of his son yet the factum of his grand-daughters prosecuting studies at Solan located at a distance of 22 kms therefrom when remains un-controverted by the respondent by his adducing cogent evidence in displacement thereof also when for their behalf the petitioner claimed his bonafidely requiring the demised premises, conspicuously for theirs standing housed therein for easing their discomfort besides inconvenience of traveling thereupto from Subathu and vice versa, inconvenience whereof extantly besets them also besets him, hence cannot be construed to be bereft of any trace or element of veracity also when the purpose aforesaid cannot be construed to be not a genuine bonafide requirement of the petitioner/landlord qua the relevant premises. Consequently it was inapt for the learned Appellate Authority to by grossly mis-appreciating the relevant evidence also his grossly including into consideration irrelevant material besides excluding relevant and germane evidence render incorrect findings on issue No.2. 10. In view of the above, the present petition stands allowed. Impugned judgment stands quashed and set aside qua refusal of relief of eviction of the respondent herein from the tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide requirement. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.