his family income as the son of the petitioner Sh. Deepak Kumar is stated to be earning Rs. 16,000/- per month. Petitioner has filed copy of appointment letter of his son evincing this fact whereas respondent has merely asserted that the said son is getting a handsome salary without filing any material in support of this plea. Although, the appointment letter filed by the petitioner pertains to the year 2012, however, the fact thatthe tenanted premises is required by the petitioner to start the business with his daughter in law, the question of the salary of the son of the petitioner pales into insignificance. Moreover, petitioner has already stated in the petition that in respect of his another shop, separate petition for eviction is sub-judice in which he intends to settle his younger son Sh. Deepak Kumar. Except for mere denial that the stated bonafide requirement of the petitioner for starting the business of tailoring with the help of his daughter in law is fallacious, respondent has not pleaded any more facts to underpin his plea. When it is an irrefragable position that the petitioner is a retired person and his daughter in law is qualified in the field of tailoring and cutting, then in the absence of any contrary material on record, this requirement of the petitioner cannot be suspected. It will not be out of place to mention here that in today's time, it is generally seen that the retired persons are getting themselves involved in some vocation so as to keep themselves occupied as well as to supplement the family income. Thus, it would be unjustified to dictate any term to the petitioner to not think about starting any vocation for the sole reason of the tenanted premises being in possession of the respondent.”
