Bata India Ltd. vs Anil Kumar Bahl on 1 March, 2012
7. Bona fide need: PW-1 i.e., landlord no. 2 had deposed that they were
unemployed and required the tenanted premises to run a shop and in his cross
examination, he denied the suggestion that he was running any business. The
tenants had argued that the landlords did not disclose the details of the
business which was intended to be started; hence, there was no bona fide
need. To this contention, the learned ARC held that the landlord is the best
judge of his need and it was not open for the Court or the tenant to dictate
terms to him and placed reliance on Tarsem Singh v. Gurvinder Singh.3 It
was further held that non-disclosure of the nature of the business sought to be
set up would not render the need of the landlord as mala fide and reliance in
this regard was placed on Bata India Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Bahl.4 In view of
the above, the learned ARC held that the landlords were successful in
establishing their bona fide requirement.