The genuine and honest need of the landlord for eviction, the subjective choice of accommodation, and the landlord's financial means and experience for starting a business are crucial in determining the requirement for eviction.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. In the present revision petition, the petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority Sonepat who dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that the rented land is required for bona fide use of the petitioners.

2. The land measuring 54 feet x 39 feet situated at Rohtak Road in Sonepat urban area was leased to the respondent herein. The said lease was renewed vide lease dated 10.2.1988 commencing from 1.4.1987 for a period of 10 years i.e. upto 31.3.1997. It has been alleged by the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the plot but vide registered gift deed dated 2.5.1976 this plot of land was gifted to petitioner No. 2, his son. The petitioners have sought the ejectment of the respondent on the ground that rented land is required by the petitioner No. 1 for his own use. He is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of business any other rented land and he has not vacated such rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It is further pleaded that petitioner No. 1 has become quite old and he cannot cultivate agricultural land, which he owns, therefore, he wants to start a business of his own on the rented land alongwith his son petitioner No. 2 and they intend to provide a Show-room for doing their business.

3. In written statement it was stated that petitioner No. 1 does not require rented land for his own use. He is occupying other land within the urban area and has got vacated many such rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The petitioner No. 1 is not cultivating any agricultural land. The agricultural land is owned by petitioner No. 2 and his brother. It was denied that petitioner No. 1 want to start business on his own land alongwith the petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is not in dire necessity of keeping his son with him because of his old age. Mere ipse dixit of the landlord that he wants to set up business, cannot be accepted as a bona fide necessity. The story of setting up of a business is nothing but a pretext of seeking the ejectment of the respondent. It was further pleaded that the petitioner No. 2 is a permanent resident of Canada. He has acquired citizenship of Canada. He is holding a degree of Engineering and is working as a qualified Engineer in Canada, and therefore the story set up by the petitioner is a mere wish, want and excuse in order to seek ejectment of the respondent. The petitioners have not mentioned the business which they intend to do after getting the land in dispute vacated from the respondent.

4. After filing replication by the landlord, the learned trial court framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether petitioner No. l requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation? If so, to what effect? OPA

2. Whether the value and utility of the demised premises has been materially effected? OPA

3. Relief.

5. In support of issue No. 1, the petitioners have appeared as AW1 and AW2 respectively as well as produced AW3 Ram Jiwan, the person who has prepared the site plan and AW4 Suresh Chaudhary, AW5 Ram Bhaj in support of their claim of bona fide requirement of the rented land. To rebut the evidence led by the petitioner, respondents have produced RW1-Raja Tikkoo, Sr. Regional Manager, RW2-Ajay Singh, Senior Sales Officer, Dilbagh Singh-RW3 and Chandgi Ram-RW4 a person allegedly known to the landlord.

6. After considering the respective evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment holding that the rented land is required for bona fide use and occupation of the landlord. However, in appeal the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller were reversed. The Appellate Authority while reversing the ejectment order, inter alia, held that the petitioners have not disclosed whether they have looked for a shop where they want to start the busi