Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant Union of India through Postal Department being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.7.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Appeal No. 14 of 2011, Union of India v. Dilip Kumar, whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction decree and judgment dated 4.7.2011 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No. 24 of 2006, Dilip Kumar v. Union of India, whereby the learned Rent Tribunal granted eviction decree in respect of suit premises situated at Fatehpura, Udaipur.

2. By concurrent decrees of eviction the learned Tribunals below had allowed the application for eviction filed by the landlord-respondent in respect of suit premises. The need claimed by the respondent landlord Dilip Kumar was for his son Ankur Talk.

3. Both the Tribunals below have found that the respondent-landlord had bona fide need for the suit premises in question and therefore, directed eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant Mr. V.K. Mathur submitted that the respondent-landlord did not have bona fide need inasmuch as the landlord has another premises towards south of the suit premises and the said premises can be used for satisfying the bonafide need of his son Ankur Tak.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant has no force. The finding of bonafide need of the landlord is a finding of fact.

6. It has been well settled by umpteen number of judgments of this Court as well as Honble Supreme Court some of which are referred below that the tenant cannot dictate the terms as to how the landlord should adjust his need and whether he should do particular business in the particular manner or at a particular place or not.

7. The landlord is the best judge of his need in this regard. The findings regarding bonafide need of the landlord are findings of facts and unless they are palpably wrong and perverse, they do not require any interference by this Court in the second appeal.

8. The tenant is not the best judge of the need of the landlord, but on the other hand, the respondent-landlord himself is the best judge of his business need and tenant cannot dictate terms in this regard. in this regard, following judgments may be referred to:

(i) 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217, Denzil Nagrath v. LRs of Balwant Singh

(ii) S.B. C.S.A. No. 132 of 2009, LRs of Prakash v. Poornima, decided on 11.5.2011

(iii) S.B.C.S.A. No. 174 of 2006, Abdul Salam v. Arvind Kumar, decided on 17.1.2009

(iv) S.B.C.S.A. No. 159/2005, Raj Kumar v. Shevi Bai, decided on 22.1.2009 reported in 2009(3) RLW 2663

(v) S.B.C.S.A. No. 203 of 2010, Om Prakash Bhati v. LRs of Har Kanwar, decided on 11.8.2011

9. This Court in the case of LRs of Prakash v. Poornima, S.B.C.S.A. No. 132 of 2009, decided on 11.5.2011 also emphasised that landlord was the best Judge of his needs in the following terms:

"5. Learned counsel for the -respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the Courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bona fide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial Court and as per the catenae of judgments of Honble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should satisfy his bona frde need for his business place and from the facts found by the Courts below it was clear that the very source of livelihood of plaintiffs was the STD PCO Booth, which is presently run under the staircase and they need bigger premises for carrying out this business.

6. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court and the present second appeal is liable to be dismissed and same is accordingly dismissed."

10. This Court in the case of Denzil Najrath v. LRs of Balwant Singh & Ors., reported in 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217, in which this Court held in para 6 as under:

"Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and evidence recorded by the learned trial Court, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the fact about the bona fide need of the landlord recorded by the learned trial Court are not perverse in any manner. They are based on cogent reasons and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is required to be made in the present first appeal of the defendant-tenant. The owner-plaintiff, Swarn Singh has clearly stated in paras 7 and 8 of his affidavit that the available house with the plaints family was very small of three rooms and for a family of two married brothers and three married sisters and parents of them, the said accommodation was very short of the requirement and therefore, they needed.the suit house for their own residential purposes. Nothing in the cross-examination was even asked from the said deponent about the relationship and number of family members and therefore, the averments made in the affidavit was sufficient proof unshaken in the cross-examination of the said deponent, namely, Swarn Singh. It is well settled that findings about the bonafide need of the landlord arefindings offact and unless they can be said to be perverse or without any foundation, the same cannot be interfered with by the appellate Court and even though this is first appeal as the trial Court was that of learned Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur and requirement of substantial question of law may not be there as such as is required for second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., still this Court is satisfied that decree under appeal deserves no interference and the present appeal filed by the defendant-tenant has no merit."

11. In the present case, this Court is fully satisfied that on the basis of pleadings, the Tribunals below were perfectly justified in arriving at the findings of bona fide and reasonableness of the need of respondent-landlord and no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be made in the impugned orders and decrees.

12. Consequently, the present writ petition of the petitioner tenant deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

13. The petitioner-tenant Postal Department of Union of India shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises viz., hall in question to the respondent-landlord within a period of one year from today i.e. on or before 31.3.2014 and shall pay mesne profit @ :1,5001- per month commencing from April 2013 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of one year for eviction shall stand reduced and the judgment of eviction would become executable forthwith. The petitioner shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondent within two months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void. The petitioner-tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial Court within one month from today and one copy thereof alongwith affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over to the respondent-landlord within a period of one year from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent- landlord shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned Rent Tribunal below and both the parties forthwith.