The landlord's bona fide necessity for eviction is established based on his evidence and witness admissions, and the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding his accommodation needs.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

1. This is tenants' revision petition challenging the order/judgments of the Authorities below whereby their eviction has been ordered from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlord.

2. Without elaborating the facts, suffice is to say that the petitioners are the tenants in different portions of the premises in dispute i.e. SCF No.5, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh under the respondent-Sunil Arora. The respondent-landlord filed eviction petition against the petitioners on various grounds including the ground of personal necessity. However, no other ground except the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the respondent-landlord has found favoured with the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenants and the aforesaid judgment/order of the Rent Controller has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority.

3. The case of the respondent-landlord on the ground of personal necessity as set up is that he is doing the business of books under the name of M/s Popular Book Store for the last many years. The said business has increased manifold and now he requires the demised premises for the purposes of shifting and adjusting the stationery and material related to the computer stationery which is part of his expanding business in the demised premises and secondly, his wife has also decided to expand her wholesale business of gift items etc. and to run the same from the demised premises under the name and style of M/s J.M. Popular which she has started recently from the existing premises, but she is unable to carry due to insufficiency of the accommodation.

4. The petitioners have controverted the averments made in the eviction application denying that the business of the respondent-landlord has increased and he is in the need of adjoining premises as well as the premises in question for his business and further stated that the premises are not required by the respondent-landlord for his bona fide personal necessity for the purpose of expansion of the business and he has only fabricated this ground to get the ejectment of the petitioners.

5. While appearing in the witness box as PW1, the respondent-landlord has reiterated the entire averments on oath. He has specifically stated that the premises in question are required by him for his personal use and occupation and for expanding the business of his wife who is carrying out the business of wholesale gift items.

6. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence on record while holding that the respondent-landlord is entitled to the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of personal bona fide necessity has observed as under:

“In the present case, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that his business had expanded and he had to display his goods in the verandah because of the scarcity of the space. He has further alleged that his wife has also started her business five years ago and the business of the wife has also been expanded and the premises is insufficient for that purpose. On this point appearing in the witness box as RW-2 Iqbal Singh, respondent has himself admitted that the petitioner display the books and stationery item outside the shop. Gulzar Singh RW-1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner many times lay and display their stocks on the cots outside the shop, although the same is prohibited. The admission on the part of respondent No.1 Iqbal Singh and respondent No.3 Gulzar Singh appearing in the witness box as RW2 and RW1 goes to show that the petitioner is in scarcity of space and that is why he has to display his goods outside the shop. This makes the need of the petitioner as bonafide. Furthermore, a careful perusal of the income tax statements of Sunil Arora petitioner goes to show that the income has kept on rising. Whereas the business profits were Rs.64,610/-in the year, 1996-97, the same increased to Rs.72,000/-in the year, 1997-98 and further continued to