The judgment establishes the principle that a landlord's expectation of good returns for the property is not a ground to suspect the bona fides of their requirement for ejectment. It also emphasizes the importance of clear and specific pleading regarding the landlord's bona fide need and the requirement to confront issues related to the landlord's actions during the pendency of the eviction proceedings.

K. KANNAN, J.

I. The subject matter of civil revision petitions

The Civil Revision No. 4659 of 2006 is at the instance of the landlord seeking for ejectment of the tenant in respect of the premises occupied by the tenant at the ground floor. The landlord had a case to contend that he was occupying the first floor of a larger portion measuring 66'x16' and yet another portion at the second floor measuring 12'x23'. The ground floor was also necessary for establishing security and computer education for the benefit of the grandson of the first petitioner and the son of the second petitioner. The petition was ordered by the Rent Controller but reversed in appeal by the appellate Court. The landlord is the revision petitioner in Civil Revision No. 4659 of 2006.

2. The other connected petition in Civil Revision No. 6215 of 2008 is with reference to another portion of the ground floor by the very same landlord for eviction of another tenant who was a doctor and the need expressed was the same as made for the petition filed in Civil Revision No. 4659 of 2006, referred to above. The Rent Controller directed ejectment and the appellate court also confirmed the same. The tenant is the revision petitioner before this court in Civil Revision No. 6215 of 2008.

II. The reasoning adopted by the courts below

3. Admittedly, the property was granted in lease by the first petitioner, who is the mother of the second petitioner. It was contended that the demised premises at the ground floor was necessary for carrying on with the business which they had already established at the first floor but it was necessary at the ground floor as well as necessary space for carrying on the business and also for the requirement of the son of the second petitioner, who had physical ailment with some impairment beneath his hip and had to be on a wheelchair. The appellate court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller principally on the ground that the landlord already had in his possession a large extent of property at the first floor of dimension of 66'x16' and the ground for eviction made was not really a need but merely a desire. Before the appellate court, it was also contended that there was yet another portion at the second floor which fell vacant but it was let out by the other co-owner Chahal to another person and it would discredit the actual need of the landlord for additional accommodation. It was also brought at the trial that the landlord had actually advertised the property for sale during the pendency of proceedings and this was relied on by the tenant to contend that the landlord could not have had a bona fide requirement for eviction of the premise.

III. Contentions of the counsel for landlord

4. The counsel for the landlord, who is the revision petitioner in Civil Revision No. 4659 of 2006 refers to me to the fact that the requirement at the ground floor was not merely for the customers who could avail of the services in computer education and security services but on account of the handicap of the second petitioner's son for whose requirement, the building was sought in ejectment. The vacation of any portion at the second floor or letting by one of the co-owners cannot go to discredit their own need. The counsel would also refer to the fact that a plea for enhancement of rent which was made in the year 1995 or 1996 or even in the year 1994 or 1997 ought not to be material at all as the lower appellate court itself has observed referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court that a mere expectation of increase of rent cannot be a ground to doubt the bona fides. The petition had been filed only in the year 2002 that was 5 years after the previous enhancement and the lower appellate court was in error in finding that the requirement was not bona fide.

IV. The contentions in response by tenants

5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant would take me to some photographs taken in relation to the property to point out that the