The prerogative of the landlord to expand business must be presumed as bonafide, and the landlord is the best judge of their need.

Alok Singh, J.

1. Landlords have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "1949 Act"), challenging the order dated 17.9.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, as-well as judgment/order dated 20.4.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Rent Act, Chandigarh.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that landlords preferred eviction petition against the tenant on the ground, inter-alia, that tenant-respondent is occupying demise premises situated on the ground floor of SCO Nos. 102-02-03, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- per month in addition to electricity charges. Due to liberalization of the policies by Government of India, since 1991, rebate/incentives are given to the NRIs, the petitioners decided to set up a departmental store of world repute to give latest modern items to the residents of Chandigarh and the petitioners have decided to start the business in the entire building comprised of six floors including the ground floor and basement. Petitioners No.3 and 4 are engaged in business in Singapore, Europe, Australia, Canada, America. Petitioner No.2 also decided to settle in India in his native country and to do the business in Chandigarh with the assistance of petitioner No.4; petitioner No. 1 the real sister shall also join petitioners No.3 and 4 alongwith her son, who has completed his MBA study and wants to settle in marketing. The son of petitioner No.2 has not yet settled anywhere, although, he was made to settle in Singapore, Brunei Darusslam etc. but he has all interest in India and is adamant to settle his life in India; petitioners got a portion vacated on the ground floor and basement, but the said portion is neither suitable nor sufficient to start the departmental store of their choice; petitioners do not own and occupy any other commercial building in the urban area of Chandigarh nor have they got vacated any such building in this area, after the commencement of the Act.

3. Respondent-tenant contested the claim of the revisionist-landlords and stated in the written statement that the demise tenanted premises was leased out to them about 22 years ago at the then rent of Rs.750 per month with rebate of Rs.100/-, which was lastly enhanced to Rs.800/- per month with effect from 1.5.1986, excluding water and electricity charges. It was further contended by the tenant that earlier also eviction petition was filed by the landlord against the tenant where a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the rent was enhanced to Rs.3Q00/- excluding water and electricity charges with effect from 1.4.1991, whereby tenancy was created afresh in favour of the respondent. It was contended by the tenant-respondent that petitioner No.1 is a housewife and very well settled in her old age with her husband in Amritsar for the last number of years, petitioner No.2, mother of petitioners No.l, 3 and 4 is about 80 years of age and presently settled in Bruine, Darussalam where she is doing business and is otherwise permanently settled in Ajmer, Rajasthan. It is further stated that petitioners No.3 and 4 are already engaged in running there business in Singapore, Europe, Australia, Cananda and America for the last number of years and hence, they have absolutely no need to start business by way of opening a huge Departmental Store in the entire building. It is further stated by the tenant that the petitioners got vacated built up accommodation situated on the ground floor of S.C.O. No.101-02-03, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh from the then tenant Dr. S.P.Bedi and they have not started any business therein. The further contention of the tenant-respondent is that Punjab Scheduled Castes Financial Corporation, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") is in occupation of first, second and third and fourth floor of the above said SCO, whose lease had expired and thereafte