The landlords perception of his necessity is generally accepted as bonafide, and the tenant has the onus to rebut the presumption of bonafides by leading cogent and material evidence.

Rajive Bhalla, J. - Challenge in this revision petition is to an order, dated 11.1.2007, passed by the learned appellate Authority, Chandigarh, accepting the appeal, filed by respondent No. 1-landlord and reversing the order, dated 29.11.2004, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh.

2. The landlord-respondent No. 1 is admittedly owner of shop-cum-office No. 284,Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, and in possession of the first and second floors of the building. The rear portion on the ground floor is occupied by the petitioner as a tenant initially @ Rs. 600/- per month and eventually increased to Rs. 1,300/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The landlord filed a petition for ejectment on the grounds that the petitioner had sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 for running an STD booth, without any authority from the landlord, the petitioner had made alterations in the premises, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the building, and that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation, as after living for over 30 years in the West, he was fed up with the western way of life and had decided to shift to India and to start a business in the portion, occupied by the petitioner.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant filed a written statement, asserting that the premises in dispute are a shop-cum-office. The first and second floors cannot be used as a residence, as a shop-cum-office can only be used for the purpose of an office. It was further asserted that the landlords requirement is mala fide, as the ejectment petition was instituted so as to pressurize the petitioner to increase rent. The landlord is residing abroad and is well settled in his business. As regards the plea of sub-letting, it was stated that respondent No. 2 is the petitioners daughter. The entire premises are in his physical possession, though the STD connection is in his daughters name. It was denied that any cabin had been constructed. Respondent No. 2 in her written statement denied the plea of subletting and the existence of a cabin. The landlord filed a replication reiterating the assertions in the ejectment petition.

4. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :

1. Whether respondents are liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises on the grounds taken in para 1(b), 1(c) of the petition ? OPP

2. Whether petitioner is in bonafide need and requirement of the tenanted premises ? OPP

2A. Whether the premises in dispute is required by the petitioner for his personal requirement ? OPP

2B. Whether the respondent has made material addition and alterations in the premises in dispute ? OPR

2C. Whether the premises in dispute is liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting by the respondent ? OPR

3. Relief."

5. The Learned Rent Controller, after a perusal of the pleadings and upon an appraisal of the evidence, adduced by the parties, dismissed the ejectment petition by holding that the landlord had failed to establish his bonafide personal need, and the pleas of subletting and material alterations.

6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority upheld the order, passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of subletting and material impairment but accepted the landlords plea of bonafide necessity and, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the order, passed by the Rent Controller and ordered the petitioners ejectment.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while reversing the Rent Controllers order on the ground of bonafide personal necessity, the learned Appellate Authority, apart from discussing the precedents, cited by counsel for the parties, has failed to make any significant reference to the pleadings and the evidence. The impugned judgment is, therefore, illegal,without jurisdiction and perverse. It is argued that the bonafide requirement, asserted by the landlord, does not disclose any element of need much less an