JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2011, rendered by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ramnagar, District Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 06 of 2007 and also against the judgment and order dated 15.04.2014 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 04 of 2011. 2. “Key facts”, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the father of respondent i.e. Raja Ram was the landlord and owner of the building situated at Rama Mandir Marg, Ramnagar, District-Nainital and the petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question since 1970. Petitioner is carrying his business of printing press at Ramnagar after obtaining loans from various banks. Petitioner has no alternative accommodation at Ramnagar and he made several efforts to get residential accommodation at Ramnagar but he could not succeed. 3. Respondent being the son of late Raja Ram filed a petition under Section 21(1) (a) (b) of the U.P. Act. No. 13 of 1972 for the release of premises, which is under the tenancy of the petitioner. The premises in question came in the share of respondent in the family partition. 4. The petition was contested by the petitioner. Learned Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2011 allowed the release application of the respondent. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Nainital, which was 2nd subsequently transferred before the learned Additional District Judge, District Nainital, wherein the learned appellate court had framed six issues and decided issues no. 1 to 3 regarding relationship of the landlord and tenant and bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord vide judgment and order dated 15.04.2014. 5. Learned Prescribed Authority has conclusively held that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires re-construction. He also upheld the contention of the landlord that the premise in question is bona fidely required by him. 6. Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Nainital has reversed the findings of the learned Prescribed Authority qua the condition of the building and upheld the finding of the Prescribed Authority as far as the building in question is bona fidely required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent has alternative accommodation available with him. 8. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent has alternative accommodation available with him. 8. The law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge qua the suitability of the premises. The tenant cannot dictate the landlord the manner in which he should reside. 9. The requirement of the landlord for personal need was bona fide. The landlord has to settle his son by keeping the premises vacated from Bajaja Line. The landlord is residing with his brother Brij Mohan jointly and he has only one house. The landlord has conclusively proved that he required the premises bona fide. 10. The courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. The findings cannot be reversed as they are not perverse. The scope of judicial interference in these matters is very limited. 11. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord within a period of three months from today. Petitioner is also directed to pay the usual use and occupation charges to the tenant.