JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the landlord respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/3 and 1/6 to 1/9. 2. The petitioner before this Court has questioned the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 3rd April, 2014 directing for the release of the tenanted accommodation in possession of the petitioner and upon challenge being made unsuccessfully before the appellate court, passed order dated 16th September, 2024 passed in Rent Appeal No.- 60 of 2014, the said order is also under challenge. 3. The only point argued before this Court to assail the findings returned by the prescribed authority affirmed in appeal is to the effect that landlord even though had a large family but very conveniently concealed the available three shops in the residential accommodation itself besides the shop in possession of the tenant petitioner and, therefore, there stood no bona fide need. It is submitted that this fact emerged out after the survey commission report was submitted which established that alternative sufficient accommodation was there. 4. Besides the above, petitioner has assailed the findings of the prescribed authority as well as judgment of appellate court on the score of bona fide need as well as comparative hardship on account of subsequent development taking place for the death of landlord and subsequent settlement of the sons in running the power loom factory. It is argued that affidavit of the son in response to the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, it has clearly come out that two shops were already there in the house which were in a dilapidated condition and had fallen to ground and were reconstructed and settlement has already taken place. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the survey commission report as well as affidavit filed by one Mohd Mujeeb in response to the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 5. Thus the argument is that neither there existed bona fide need, nor in view of the settlement of the sons in alternative accommodation tilted the point of comparative hardship in favour of the landlord and hence according to him the order passed by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority is unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside. 6. 6. Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord, on the contrary has submitted before the Court that even if the survey commission report is taken into consideration, it does not belie the stand already taken by the landlord for release of tenanted shop inasmuch as survey commission report does not make any addition to the accommodation already in possession of the landlord so as to set up a case in favour of the tenant that there was no bona fide need ever existed to apply for release of the shop in question. In so far as the affidavit part in reply under Order 41 Rule XXVII of CPC is concerned, Sri Malviya submitted that landlord's family admittedly is very big family and even if one or two family members had died, it would have not changed the complexion of the case as far as need set up for the release of the shop in question is concerned. He has also argued that tenant petitioner cannot suggest landlord as to which accommodation would suit him better and which could be sufficient alternative accommodation to non suit him in a release case. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, since the only argument has been advanced that there has been concealment of material facts regarding availability of the accommodation especially two more shops in the premises in question, I consider it appropriate to go through the plaint/ release application to test bona fide need. Vide paragraph 3 the details of the family has been given and it shows six sons to be there of the landlord and only one son Mohd. Mujeeb has been shown to be doing confectionery business whereas the other five sons have been shown to be sitting idle and landlord throughout the release application has pleaded that he needed sufficient accommodation to establish his sons to do independent business. 8. One of the recitals made vide paragraph 6 is that only one son has been engaged in a confectionery business in the only shop available to the petitioner in the house. In reply to the said paragraph vide paragraph 6 only this much has been stated in the written statement that the elder son to be doing confectionery business and other sons are involved in power loom factory. In reply to the said paragraph vide paragraph 6 only this much has been stated in the written statement that the elder son to be doing confectionery business and other sons are involved in power loom factory. There is no specific denial to the standing structure and accommodation pleaded in paragraph 6. However in paragraph 4 and 18 it has come to be averred that there were three shops already in existence in the house premises which fact had been conveniently concealed. This aspect of averment made in written statement is sought to be defended for the survey commission report and therefore, I proceed to examine survey commission report itself. In the survey commission report nowhere it has come to be stated that there were three shops in addition to the standing structure of the building in which the landlord himself resided. What is shown is that there is one shutter shop and there are two door shops and rest of the place have been shown to be residential including a courtyard. 9. In my considered view even if a shop or two come out there in existence in the residential building where landlord resides the question that falls for consideration is as to whether accommodation is sufficient or not and not the question as to whether the landlord concealed a particular accommodation to set up a need to hold it to be ultimately not a bona fide one. 10. It is a settled legal principle that it is for the landlord to decide as to which accommodation would suit better for his own use or settling for their sons and daughter. It is held repeatedly in the authorities of this Court as well as of Supreme Court that landlord is a sole arbiter of his need and to decide suitability of the accommodation and its uses (Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 ). 11. In the entire plaint allegations including release application as has been pleaded and I have gone through, it is not disputed by the tenant petitioner that the landlord’s family was a very large one. 11. In the entire plaint allegations including release application as has been pleaded and I have gone through, it is not disputed by the tenant petitioner that the landlord’s family was a very large one. Landlord is having six sons and wanted to establish each of the them and accommodation or two more available in terms of shop in the residential house will not diminish the need or lessen the degree of pressing need, nor it could be treated that need was not a bone fide one. It is sufficient for the landlord to raise demand for release of a particular shop. It falls in the domain of the tenant to only demonstrate that sufficient alternative accommodation is available to the landlord and therefore, the need is not a bona fide one. 12. Looking to the survey commission report and the pleadings raised, I do not find there to be emerging out any such fact which may be said to be substantial to demonstrate that there was no bona fide need of the landlord even if a shop or two was more available in the residential house which admittedly was being used as a residential house and the fact coming out also on record that the hall was being used first as a coaching place in the morning and day time and evening time and night time is used as a residential place. It can very well be presumed that landlord needed the accommodation desperately to establish his sons independently. The accommodation available to the landlord cannot be said to be sufficient one. 13. The affidavit which has come to be filed to demonstrate that one of the sons himself established that the sufficient accommodation had been utilised, I find that it has come to be averred in the affidavit that there were shops that were got demolished as that were in a dilapidated condition in the premises itself and which were somehow shaped it to establish a business. It would be unfortunate that the landlord is kept waiting for the tenant to vacate premises and in the meanwhile to somehow manage his own business and to settle down his sons in the existing accommodation only. 14. It would be unfortunate that the landlord is kept waiting for the tenant to vacate premises and in the meanwhile to somehow manage his own business and to settle down his sons in the existing accommodation only. 14. On the point of bona fide need the prescribed authority has dealt with the entire material available on record and had come to record a finding that merely because certain more alternative accommodations were available for residential purposes or that he would be in a position to acquire certain vacant premises would itself not run counter to case of release set up on the ground of bona fide need. As I have already held after discussing the material placed before me filed along with this petition and the arguments advanced I, therefore, do not find the findings returned bona fide need to be in any manner perverse. The landlord is always in a position to asses his need better than what is suggested by the tenant. (Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 ). 15. The judgment affirming the findings therefore equally held to be not vitiated for any manifest error of law or fact. 16. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.