The landlord's bona fide necessity for eviction based on the need to set up an office as an Advocate was upheld, emphasizing the landlord's discretion in choosing the accommodation.

1. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 1.3.2012 of the Rent Controller, Malout whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of personal bona fide necessity/requirement of the respondent-landlord. Further challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 23.11.2012 of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Malout. While setting up personal bona fide necessity/requirement, the respondent-landlord pleaded that he requires the shop in dispute for his use and occupation as he is an Advocate by profession and has no office to attend his clients after and before Court hours and to study cases and he was not occupying any such shop/office in the urban area of Gidderbaha or any other shop or building for the purpose of setting up of his office. Further, he pleaded that he has not got vacated any such shop or building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the vicinity of the urban area. It was further stated that he wanted to build/construct/start his office in the disputed shop. Thus, the petitioner be evicted from the demised shop.

2. The petitioner contested the eviction petition denying the averments.

3. While allowing the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide necessity, the Rent Controller held that the respondent-landlord has proved that he has no other space available to him to open his office and the petitioner has not been able to bring on record if the respondent was having sufficient alternative suitable accommodation to set up his office as an Advocate. The reference may be made to the following paragraphs of the judgment of the Rent Controller.

Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. Petitioner is alleging that he is a practising Advocate at Gidderbaha and that he necessarily requires the demised premises to open his office. The petitioner has led the evidence that he has got no other space available to him to open his office. Respondent is alleging that this area has lot of noise and this place is not suitable for the petitioner to open an office. Moreover, it is alleged that this place is far away from the residence of the petitioner and that no one will set up one's office at this place. The respondent has not been able to bring on record if the petitioner is having sufficient alternative suitable accommodation to set up his office as an Advocate. He also has not been able to point if the petitioner is also having sufficient accommodation to open his office at his residence. Rather it has come in to the evidence in the testimony of respondent and none other that the petitioner is living in a joint family in a house having dimensions 20' x 70' feet or 25' x 70'. He also has admitted that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Gidderbaha. In these circumstances, it has to be pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal reported in: 2002 (1) RCR 582 has held, "Landlord required non residential premises for the office of his son who is chartered accountant-Need is bona fide".

Further Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case R.C. Tamrakar and another v. Nidi Lekha reported in : 2001 (2) RCR 511 has held that, "It is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement". In another citation Savitri Devi Dutta v. Smt. Shakuntla Khullar reported in : 1990 (2) RCR 274 it has been held that, "Sufficiency of accommodation already in possession of landlord and lack of bona fide need are no grounds to decline the relief under section 13-A." In another case in case M/s. Kay Iron Works (P.) Ltd. v. Shri Molar Mal, : 1998 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 404 : 1999 (1) Judicial Re-ports 30the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that, "Tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding sufficiency or insufficiency of the premises, which is already in o