ORDER :

(Inderjeet Singh, J.)

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as 'Landlord') challenging the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'tenant') was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in favour of the landlord was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlord filed eviction application before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer against the tenant on the ground of bona-fide need of the shop in dispute for his son i.e. Shabir Khan and the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer vide its judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 allowed the eviction application filed by the landlord. Thereafter, the tenant filed appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer and the same was allowed and the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer dated 06.10.2016 was set aside vide judgment dated 30.10.2021. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.2021 the landlord has filed this writ petition.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord submitted that the eviction application was filed by the landlord on the ground of bona-fide need of the shop in dispute for business of his son and in this regard the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer framed issue No.1 and after recording a finding of fact in favour of the landlord allowed the eviction application. Counsel further submits that the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer has committed serious illegality in reversing the finding of the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer which was based on the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. Counsel further submits that the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer has not considered the fact that the landlord is partner in the business of his brothers whereas, the present shop in dispute is needed for the business of his son and not for himself. Counsel further submits that the son of the landlord is in service and getting monthly salary and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer has wrongly held that he will not get more earning than what he is getting from salary at present. Counsel further submits that it is for the landlord to choose a business of his choice and not for the tenant to advise to do what type of business or service would be suitable to the landlord.

4. In support of the contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi , reported in 2016 (10) SCC 209 in which in para 12 it has been held as under:-

"12. In light of the above, Additional Rent Controller and the High Court rightly concluded that no alternative premises were lying vacant for running business of respondent's son. The High Court rightly relied on the ratio of Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja to hold that it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to which shop her son should start the business from."

5. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad and others v. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 1 in which in para 36, 37 & 38 it has been held as under:-

"36. A finding as to bona fide requirement for doing readymade garments business by Matloob Ahmad has been expressly recorded by the appellant authority. The said finding was a finding of fact. Neither could it have been interfered with, nor has it been set aside by the writ court. In view of the above pos