JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant civil revision petition, stands, directed, by the landlord/petitioner herein, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts, upon, Rent Petition (RBT) No. 38/2 of 2015/2012, and, upon, Rent Appeal No. 2-S/13(b) of 2016, hence respectively, by, the learned Rent Controller, Court No.3, Shimla, and, by the learned Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, H.P., (i) wherethrough, the eviction petition constituted against the respondents/tenants, on, the ground of arrears of rent, stood allowed, whereas, it stood dismissed, on, the ground of bonafide requirement, of, the demised rented land, hence, by the petitioners/landlords. 2. The learned Rent Controller concerned, had recorded a firm conclusion, vis-a-vis, the, existence, of, a relationship of landlord, and, tenant, inter se the contesting litigants, and, also, made directions, upon, the respondents/tenants, to, deposit, the, arrears of rent, commencing from April,2004, uptill, a, decision being recorded, upon, Rent Petition No. 38/2 of 2015/2012. The respondents/ tenants apparently, did not contest, the afore findings, rendered, upon, the afore factum, and, as comprised in theirs not rearing any appeal, thereagainst, hence, before the learned Appellate Authority concerned, and, thereupon, the afore findings, rather acquire both conclusivity, and, binding effects. 3. The landlords' petition seeking eviction, of, the tenant, from, the open land, hitherto used by the respondents/tenants, for, operating their coal business, (i) business whereof is averred to be not extantly carried therefrom, and, further the eviction of the respondents/tenants, from, the open plot, was espoused, for facilitating, the landlords, to, stack their building materials, and, thereafter it being enabled, to, be sold therefrom. The landlords/tenants, had, made a forthright, and, candid disclosure, in the eviction petition, qua, petitioner No.2. operationalizing, a, readymade garments' enterprises, run in the name, and, style of M/s AB Lal & sons, and, the afore business being looked after by his wife, petitioner No.3, after, solemnization of their marriage, in the year 2011, and, thereafter, it is contended, that, they intend to expand their commercial enterprise, through, theirs utilising, for the afore purpose, the vacant plot, wherefrom, the respondents/tenants, hitherto operated, the, now defunct coal business. The afore statutory ground averred in the petition, was strived, to beget a taint of colourability, and, also, the, taint of malafides, given the petitioners/landlords rather holding godowning spaces, hence, sufficient, for, the averred purpose. 4. The afore statutory ground averred in the petition, was strived, to beget a taint of colourability, and, also, the, taint of malafides, given the petitioners/landlords rather holding godowning spaces, hence, sufficient, for, the averred purpose. 4. Both, the learned Rent Controller concerned, as well, as the learned Appellate Authority concerned, had made, concurrent conclusions, (i) that, the averment made in the petition, qua the wife of the petitioner No.2, namely, one Nidhi Aggarwal, managing, a, commercial enterprises, run in the name, and, style of M/S A.B. Lal & Sons, since both contracting marriage, in the year 2011, rather standing falsified, given Nidhi Aggarwal, lodging a FIR against her husband, hence, with there occurring acrimony, in their, relations, hence, the afore reared ground, in, the petition becoming redundant. However, the afore meted reason, for dispelling the vigour, of, the afore averred statutory ground, conspicuously, when concurrent therewith evidence also stood adduced, by the landlords/co-petitioners, and, with conclusivity, being acquired by the findings qua there existing, an undisputed relationship, of landlords, and, tenants, inter se the litigating parties, (i) thereupon, renders the afore meted reason, to, be flimsy, and, also it, not, at all working towards hence diminishing, the, vigour, of, the proven statutory grounds, appertaining, to, the aspiration of the landlords, to enhance, and, expand their business, (ii) and, also to stack or keep their building material, at the open land in dispute, given, the proximity of its location, vis-a-vis, the main road, hence, it being facilitative, of, theirs rearing, a, handsome profit therefrom, (iii) further it was in sagacious, for, both the learned courts below, to rather proceed to dwell, upon, falsity, if any, of the management, of, the business other than the strived to be established/operationalised, reiteratedly, the afore meted reason is unsuitable nor holds any direct nexus, vis-a-vis, the proven, and, pleaded ground, of, eviction, as set forth, in, the eviction petition. 5. 5. Be that as it may, both, the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, had proceeded, to, on anvil of their being sufficiency’s, of, accommodations, and, sufficiency’s of godowning facilities, for, hence, stacking, the, construction materials, as, aspired to be stacked, on, the demised vacant plot, (a) and, thereafter concluded, that, the afore sufficiency’s per se constituting a tenacious reason, for, non-suiting the landlords/co-petitioners, (b) and, also concurrently made conclusions qua the pleaded bonafides rather coming to be tainted, with, colourabilities, of, malafides. However, in making the afore conclusion, both, learned Rent Controller concerned, and, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, appear to mismaneuver, both law and facts, and, obviously visibly wander astray, from, the settled expostulation of law, (c) qua the landlords alone holding, the, capacity to discern, the, adequacy or sufficiency of accommodation, despite, theirs extantly holding godowning spaces, for, stacking the construction material concerned, (d) and, the respondents/tenants, rather not holding any capacity to mentor or guide the landlords/co-petitioners, nor it being amenable, for, the Rent Controller concerned, to be swayed by the mentorings meted to the landlords or to him, by, the respondents/tenants. The afore imperative tests, of, the landlords/co-petitioners, alone being vested with, the, capacity to adjudge, the requisite suitability, of, the requisite accommodations or the requisite deficiencies or paucities thereof, obviously appears to be both slighted, and, undermined by both, the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, also by the learned Appellate Authority concerned. Moreover, the afore compliant mentorings, of, the respondents/tenants also mislead, both to erroneously conclude qua hence the eviction petition, rather acquiring a taint or colour of malafides. Necessarily, hence, the co-petitioners/landlords, are entitled hence to seek eviction, of, the respondents/tenants, from, the demised vacant land concerned, unless evidence surges, forth, that the imminent statutory ground, for, forestalling, their strivings, and, is comprised in the co-petitioners/landlords, despite, within five years, from, the date of institution of the extant eviction petition, (e) and, hence, theirs ensuring evictions, of premises, occurring within, the limits of M.C. Shimla, holding inter se para-materia suitability in location, and, profit yielding capacity, vis-a-vis, the demised vacant land, theirs yet filing the extant eviction petition . However, the afore evidence, is grossly amiss, and, for want of the afore evidence, this Court concludes, that the petitioners/landlords' aspiration, cannot be, thwarted, upon, the afore flimsy, and, pretextual reasons. 6. However, the afore evidence, is grossly amiss, and, for want of the afore evidence, this Court concludes, that the petitioners/landlords' aspiration, cannot be, thwarted, upon, the afore flimsy, and, pretextual reasons. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant Civil Revision Petition, is, allowed, and, orders impugned before this Court, wherethrough, both the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, had dismissed the eviction petition of the landlords/co-petitioners, on their ground of bonafide requirement, of the demised vacant land, are set aside. Consequently, the landlords/co-petitioners, are, held to entitled, to, seek, eviction of the respondents/tenants, from, the demised vacant land, on the ground, of, theirs bonafidely requiring it, for their own use, and, occupation. In sequel, the respondents/tenants are directed to within two months, from today, handover the vacant possession of the demised vacant land, to, the landlords/co-petitioners. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant civil revision petition, stands, directed, by the landlord/petitioner herein, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts, upon, Rent Petition (RBT) No. 38/2 of 2015/2012, and, upon, Rent Appeal No. 2-S/13(b) of 2016, hence respectively, by, the learned Rent Controller, Court No.3, Shimla, and, by the learned Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, H.P., (i) wherethrough, the eviction petition constituted against the respondents/tenants, on, the ground of arrears of rent, stood allowed, whereas, it stood dismissed, on, the ground of bonafide requirement, of, the demised rented land, hence, by the petitioners/landlords. 2. The learned Rent Controller concerned, had recorded a firm conclusion, vis-a-vis, the, existence, of, a relationship of landlord, and, tenant, inter se the contesting litigants, and, also, made directions, upon, the respondents/tenants, to, deposit, the, arrears of rent, commencing from April,2004, uptill, a, decision being recorded, upon, Rent Petition No. 38/2 of 2015/2012. The respondents/ tenants apparently, did not contest, the afore findings, rendered, upon, the afore factum, and, as comprised in theirs not rearing any appeal, thereagainst, hence, before the learned Appellate Authority concerned, and, thereupon, the afore findings, rather acquire both conclusivity, and, binding effects. 3. The respondents/ tenants apparently, did not contest, the afore findings, rendered, upon, the afore factum, and, as comprised in theirs not rearing any appeal, thereagainst, hence, before the learned Appellate Authority concerned, and, thereupon, the afore findings, rather acquire both conclusivity, and, binding effects. 3. The landlords' petition seeking eviction, of, the tenant, from, the open land, hitherto used by the respondents/tenants, for, operating their coal business, (i) business whereof is averred to be not extantly carried therefrom, and, further the eviction of the respondents/tenants, from, the open plot, was espoused, for facilitating, the landlords, to, stack their building materials, and, thereafter it being enabled, to, be sold therefrom. The landlords/tenants, had, made a forthright, and, candid disclosure, in the eviction petition, qua, petitioner No.2. operationalizing, a, readymade garments' enterprises, run in the name, and, style of M/s AB Lal & sons, and, the afore business being looked after by his wife, petitioner No.3, after, solemnization of their marriage, in the year 2011, and, thereafter, it is contended, that, they intend to expand their commercial enterprise, through, theirs utilising, for the afore purpose, the vacant plot, wherefrom, the respondents/tenants, hitherto operated, the, now defunct coal business. The afore statutory ground averred in the petition, was strived, to beget a taint of colourability, and, also, the, taint of malafides, given the petitioners/landlords rather holding godowning spaces, hence, sufficient, for, the averred purpose. 4. Both, the learned Rent Controller concerned, as well, as the learned Appellate Authority concerned, had made, concurrent conclusions, (i) that, the averment made in the petition, qua the wife of the petitioner No.2, namely, one Nidhi Aggarwal, managing, a, commercial enterprises, run in the name, and, style of M/S A.B. Lal & Sons, since both contracting marriage, in the year 2011, rather standing falsified, given Nidhi Aggarwal, lodging a FIR against her husband, hence, with there occurring acrimony, in their, relations, hence, the afore reared ground, in, the petition becoming redundant. However, the afore meted reason, for dispelling the vigour, of, the afore averred statutory ground, conspicuously, when concurrent therewith evidence also stood adduced, by the landlords/co-petitioners, and, with conclusivity, being acquired by the findings qua there existing, an undisputed relationship, of landlords, and, tenants, inter se the litigating parties, (i) thereupon, renders the afore meted reason, to, be flimsy, and, also it, not, at all working towards hence diminishing, the, vigour, of, the proven statutory grounds, appertaining, to, the aspiration of the landlords, to enhance, and, expand their business, (ii) and, also to stack or keep their building material, at the open land in dispute, given, the proximity of its location, vis-a-vis, the main road, hence, it being facilitative, of, theirs rearing, a, handsome profit therefrom, (iii) further it was in sagacious, for, both the learned courts below, to rather proceed to dwell, upon, falsity, if any, of the management, of, the business other than the strived to be established/operationalised, reiteratedly, the afore meted reason is unsuitable nor holds any direct nexus, vis-a-vis, the proven, and, pleaded ground, of, eviction, as set forth, in, the eviction petition. 5. Be that as it may, both, the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, had proceeded, to, on anvil of their being sufficiency’s, of, accommodations, and, sufficiency’s of godowning facilities, for, hence, stacking, the, construction materials, as, aspired to be stacked, on, the demised vacant plot, (a) and, thereafter concluded, that, the afore sufficiency’s per se constituting a tenacious reason, for, non-suiting the landlords/co-petitioners, (b) and, also concurrently made conclusions qua the pleaded bonafides rather coming to be tainted, with, colourabilities, of, malafides. However, in making the afore conclusion, both, learned Rent Controller concerned, and, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, appear to mismaneuver, both law and facts, and, obviously visibly wander astray, from, the settled expostulation of law, (c) qua the landlords alone holding, the, capacity to discern, the, adequacy or sufficiency of accommodation, despite, theirs extantly holding godowning spaces, for, stacking the construction material concerned, (d) and, the respondents/tenants, rather not holding any capacity to mentor or guide the landlords/co-petitioners, nor it being amenable, for, the Rent Controller concerned, to be swayed by the mentorings meted to the landlords or to him, by, the respondents/tenants. The afore imperative tests, of, the landlords/co-petitioners, alone being vested with, the, capacity to adjudge, the requisite suitability, of, the requisite accommodations or the requisite deficiencies or paucities thereof, obviously appears to be both slighted, and, undermined by both, the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, also by the learned Appellate Authority concerned. Moreover, the afore compliant mentorings, of, the respondents/tenants also mislead, both to erroneously conclude qua hence the eviction petition, rather acquiring a taint or colour of malafides. Necessarily, hence, the co-petitioners/landlords, are entitled hence to seek eviction, of, the respondents/tenants, from, the demised vacant land concerned, unless evidence surges, forth, that the imminent statutory ground, for, forestalling, their strivings, and, is comprised in the co-petitioners/landlords, despite, within five years, from, the date of institution of the extant eviction petition, (e) and, hence, theirs ensuring evictions, of premises, occurring within, the limits of M.C. Shimla, holding inter se para-materia suitability in location, and, profit yielding capacity, vis-a-vis, the demised vacant land, theirs yet filing the extant eviction petition . However, the afore evidence, is grossly amiss, and, for want of the afore evidence, this Court concludes, that the petitioners/landlords' aspiration, cannot be, thwarted, upon, the afore flimsy, and, pretextual reasons. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant Civil Revision Petition, is, allowed, and, orders impugned before this Court, wherethrough, both the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, had dismissed the eviction petition of the landlords/co-petitioners, on their ground of bonafide requirement, of the demised vacant land, are set aside. Consequently, the landlords/co-petitioners, are, held to entitled, to, seek, eviction of the respondents/tenants, from, the demised vacant land, on the ground, of, theirs bonafidely requiring it, for their own use, and, occupation. In sequel, the respondents/tenants are directed to within two months, from today, handover the vacant possession of the demised vacant land, to, the landlords/co-petitioners. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.