Udayabhanu, J.

The spearhead of the contentions of the revision petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has grossly misunderstood the words of the apex court that the judge of facts when assessing and ascertaining the bona fides of the need set up should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. His grievance is that the court has a trifle identified itself with the landlord instead of dispassionately examining the genuineness of the proposed need and resorted to a contrived justification to hand out an order to ease him out of the commercial space.

2. At the outset, we would like to clarify that, really, when the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chandra Gupta {( 1999 ) 6 SCC 222)} counseled as above, what is meant is that the judge should visualize himself in the place of the landlord amidst the real life factual background in which he is situated and then honestly endeavour to gauge the truth of the matter. What is contemplated or envisaged is a totally transparent, detached and objective assessment, absolutely disassociated, in order to rule out the possibility of any private motive, hidden agenda or pretense for eviction on the part of the affinity with the landlord or prejudice against the tenant, and the same is intended to be a totally objective test to probe the state of mind of the landlord.

3. The revision petition is directed against the verdict of the Appellate Authority in arriving at a divergent finding resulting in an order of ejectment of the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition schedule shop room. (The parties are hereinafter mentioned as per their status in the RCP). The respondent has harshly censured the reasoning of the Appellate Authority alleging that the same is the result of a misconceived or rather distorted perception as to the position of law in the matter and hence liable to be set aside.

4. The petition schedule shop room is outstanding with the respondent since 1978 as per entrustment from the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The petitioner was vested with ownership of the above room vide; a gift deed. It is the case of the petitioner that he is bona fide in need of the premises in order to start a stationery business, being an educated unemployed.

5. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent that the bona fide need alleged is nothing, but a fake claim. The petitioner has no necessity at all to engage in stationery business in order to eke out his livelihood, as he is extremely affluent. A shopping complex has been constructed by his father adjacent to the building in which the petition schedule shop room is situated, investing a sum of around Rs.50 lakhs. The shopping complex is having 30 rooms; and 7 shop rooms therein are lying vacant right now. Aside from the above set up, the petitioner is running an electrical items retail outlet in an adjacent building. Moreover, the petitioner and this family have several other buildings and some of which are vacant, in the town.

6. The Rent Control Court held that the case of the respondent that the petitioner is running an electric shop was not proved, for want of positive evidence. But the court, mainly on the basis of the report of the commissioner that certain rooms are lying vacant in the building and that the same belonged to the parents of the petitioner and as the petitioner has not furnished any convincing reasons as to why the above rooms could not be utilized for his purpose, held that the need put forward is not bona fide.

7. The appellate authority redeciding the matter reversed the finding under Section 11 (3). It is the firm view of the Appellate Authority that the rejection of the case of the landlord amounted to a clear infraction of the provision.

8. It is the definite case of the revision petitioner that the evi