JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The landlord petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the appellate court in rent appeal rejecting release application of the landlord-petitioner for release of shop in question on the point of sufficient alternative accommodation already available with him and thus reversing the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while on the point of bona fide need both the courts below have concurred but since there was a mention of 5th shop on the back of the building of the landlord in the assessment register, the appellate court erred in directing the landlord to utilize that accommodation of 5th shop for his personal need. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 5th shop is not a shop itself but an open entry in the back room through that shutter which is there. It is further submitted that once bona fide need is established of the landlord to get the release application granted, the court cannot direct the landlord to adjust himself in another shop to permit continuance of tenancy of the shop in question in favour of the tenant. It is also submitted that landlord is the sole person to determine his need and decide as to how he wants his son to be settled. It is argued that none of the shops have been found to be vacant one except the accommodation which is allegedly called as 5th shop. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a number of judgments on the question of bona fide need and the discretion of the court in granting release application on the plea of bona fide need. 5. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for the tenant respondent that concealment of the 5th shop in release application itself was sufficient enough to hold that the petitioner had the enough vacant accommodation to settle his second son and, therefore, need was not bona fide one and so the findings returned by the appellate court cannot be faulted with. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their argument raised across the bar and having gone through the pleadings raised and judgments of the courts below, I find that the petitioner's bona fide need to settle his second son into business has not been doubted either by the prescribed authority or by the appellate court. 7. The prescribed authority while deciding the point of bona fide need in favour of the petitioner landlord also considered the comparative hardships and according to the court it weighed more in favour of the landlord-petitioner than the tenant. The court below while hearing the rent appeal has gone on to rely upon the document of assessment filed by the tenant in which 5th shop was also shown as a shop backside of the building, whereas it was case of the landlord that alleged 5th shop opened in the room of the house from the back side of building and was being used as a go-down. 8. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purposes of running business and to settle his second son he wanted shop facing the market on the main road and he cannot be asked to accommodate his son in a shop which was on the back side of the building. This argument appeals to reason. Landlord of the house is the person to decide and determine as to which accommodation he needs to settle his son to run business. It is not in the domain of the tenant to suggest that which side of the building he should utilize as an alternative to the shop for which the release application has been filed. 9. In the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 , the Supreme Court relied upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Damodar Sharma v. Nandram Deviram, AIR 1960 MP 345 (FB) with approval wherein it was held that the landlord was a sole arbiter of his own requirements and what was required on his part was to prove that he wanted the accommodation genuinely. 10. 10. In the case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co (2000) 1 SCC 679 , the Court reiterated its earlier decision in the case of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 in holding that landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he had got complete freedom in the matter. Again in another case Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252 , wherein High Court had accepted the plea of the tenant that one of the applicants had settled down in the America so there was no such bona fide need inasmuch as the sons were already in multifarious activities and therefore, the need of the landlord to be not bona fide, the Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the High Court observed "we fail to appreciate that when two sons are there and if they want to expand their business for the landlords and their sons to wait till the disposal of the case. They have to do something in life and they cannot wait till the appellant is evicted from the premises in question". 11. In the case of Prativa Devi (supra) the Supreme Court held that bona fide personal need is a question of fact and, therefore, such finding should not be normally interfered with. The only question is that the need set up must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive as held in the case of G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin (2002) 1 SCC 610 . 12. In the case in hand I find that landlord wanted the shop facing the market on the road to settle his second son and it has come that his son was doing business with him by placing material in the corridor/ passage in between the shop and the building. This being the factual situation, in my considered view, the requirement of the shop in question as set-up by way of bona fide need by the petitioner was a genuine need and requirement. 13. No one should and, nor can anyone suggest owner of the property to run business in the backyard area in order to accommodate tenant in the shop facing market area. 13. No one should and, nor can anyone suggest owner of the property to run business in the backyard area in order to accommodate tenant in the shop facing market area. Exception apart where it can be demonstrated that in an identically placed situation landlord has sufficient accommodation and wants release of the tenanted premises for the purpose of release only with an intention to accommodate any other tenant or new tenant, it would be quite immoral and unethical to guide the landlord to adjust himself with available alternative accommodation to accommodate tenant at a prime part of the building or at a prime location. 14. In such above view of the matter, I am not able to sustain the order of the appellate court and, accordingly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 15. The order passed by the appellate court is set aside and the order passed by the prescribed authority is confirmed.