Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The petitioner, who is the landlord, obtained an order of eviction at the Rent Controller on his plea of personal necessity. The Appellate Authority reversed the decision making a reference to the admission of the landlord that he had still one shop lying vacant and that he got vacated a few shops and let out the same after the commencement of the Act.

2. The Appellate Authority observed that the admission was the best evidence and did not require any further proof. If he had already let out two shops to Tahir and other situated in the same vicinity and he also had one vacant shop, the petition for ejectment betrayed lack of bonafides. The learned counsel would argue that the court’s observations that the landlord cannot obtain eviction of commercial property was wrong. In fact, there is no such observations and the argument is purely in the air. The counsel would refer me to a decision in Anil Bajaj and another Vs. Vinod Ahuja, 2014 VII AD (SC) 158 where the court was holding that if the landlord was carrying on his business from shop premises located in a narrow lane and the tenant is in occupation of the premises located on the main road, whi