The landlord is the best judge of his own need and convenience, and the tenant has no right to dictate where the landlord should conduct his business.

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

1. This is revision petition against the judgment dated 24.03.2014 passed by Appellate Authority (under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949), Bathinda, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of shop No.22 (ground floor) situated in Gol Diggi Market, The Mall/Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, for personal bona fide necessity of the respondents was upheld.

2. The need for the demised premises as projected by the respondents-landlord in para 2 (ii) of the ejectment petition is reproduced as follows:-

“That the shop in question is required by the applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 3 for running business in the shop in dispute. The applicant no. 2 is wife of applicant no. 1 and mother of applicants no.3 & 4. Applicant no. 3 Tarun Kumar is B.Com. whereas applicant no. 4 Mayank Bhasin has just passed his +2 class. The applicant no. 4 wants to continue his studies whereas applicant no. 3 wants to start business in the disputed shop alongwith his father Sh. Pawan Bhasin, applicant no.1. The applicant no. 1 had suffered heart problem and remained admitted. The applicants had no business and wanted to start a Restaurant in the shop in dispute. Since the shop in question was in possession of the respondents, the applicant no. 1 was left with no alternative but to open the Restaurant under the name and style of M/s Mirch Masala Eating Point in Ist Floor & 2nd Floor of shop no. 22. The abovesaid restaurant had been opened in April, 2003. The applicant no. 1 is the sole proprietor of the above said restaurant. The applicant no. 1 has to go up stair for running restaurant, which is harmful for the health of the applicant no. 1 as the doctors have advised the applicant no. 1 to avoid climbing stair cases etc. But the applicant no. 1, to earn livelihood for the family had to start business in the Ist & 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor is used as Kitchen whereas Ist floor is being used as Restaurant. But the applicants no. 1 & 3 want to start the business of the Restaurant at the ground floor because the business of Restaurant can flourish much better on the ground floor portion. The first floor is also insufficient and is not suitable for business of Restaurant. Thus the applicant no. 1 requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation, for running business of Restaurant/Hotel therein, alongwith his son applicant no. 3. Except the building in question, the applicants do not own or possess any other residential or commercial building at Bathinda nor the applicants have vacated any such building at Bathinda without any reasonable cause after enforcement of this act. Medical reports of C.M.C.Heart Research Centre, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, where the applicant no. 1 remained admitted from 24.2.2001 to 2.3.2001 are attached herewith and discharge summary of the applicant no. 1 is also attached herewith.”

3. The Appellate Authority while upholding the bona fide necessity as projected by the respondents-landlord observed that respondent No.1 Pawan Bhasin (since deceased) was running business of restaurant under the name and style of M/s Mirch Masala Eating Point on the first and second floor of shop No.22. He suffered heart problem and was unable to climb staircase and ultimately closed his business as he wanted to start the same on the ground floor. In the building of which demised premises is a part, shop in question is on the ground floor, there are two basements and two upper storeys, which are in possession of respondents-landlord. This fact is admitted that the basement got filled with water and the notice was given by Sub Divisional Magistrate for getting the basement repaired. Under the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, basement was got repaired. Respondents have put forth the plea that basement is not suitable for their business as these are filled with mud. On upper storey, respondent No.1- Pawan Bhasin was not in a posit