21. In the present case as well, once the landlord has stated that he requires the tenanted premises for a particular use, the Court is required to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical. Examining on the said touchstone , this court is of the view that the petitioner has manifested a bonafide requirement of his son Aman Jain for opening wholesale cloth showroom. To refute such bonafide requirement, respondent has contended that the son of the petitioner is gainfully employed as a Director in three companies namely M/s Olive Infratech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Milestone Creators Pvt. Ltd. And Ms/ Olive Solution Pvt. Ltd. Having office at H-32/38, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi and H. No. 318, Sector-3, Rohini Delhi. To substantiate such averments, respondent has filed company master data of the aforesaid companies as per which Aman Jain is named as one of the Directors along with the petitioner himself. On perusal of the companies master data filed by the respondent, it is found that two companies ie. Ms/ Olive Solution Pvt. Ltd. and Milestone Creators Pvt. Ltd. have been struck off from the Registrar of Companies therefore it is clear that the two companies are no longer active and generating any revenue to the benefit of Aman Jain. Regarding M/s; Olive Infratech Pvt. Ltd., it is seen from the company master data that the company status is “active”. However, to discredit the viability and profitability of M/s Olive Infratech Pvt. Ltd. petitioner has filed company information along with Indian Income Tax return acknowledgment for the assessment year 2024-2025 wherein the reverie generated by the company is shown to be nil rather profits before remuneration is shown to be minus Rs.649/- Thus, it is clear that neither of the three companies is a profit making entity so as to conclude that Aman Jain is gainfully employed or running a profitable business along with the petitioner. 22. In addition, respondent also claims that Aman Jain is also running a business bearing GSTIN 24ABEFA8739RIZR namely Ashu Hosiery. Admittedly the said business established, in Surat, Gujarat wherein it is contended that the said business is run independently by Aman Jain. To emphasize the same, respondent has filed goods and service tax details of the aforesaid business in the form of Annexure-III. On perusal of Annexure-III, it is found that the aforesaid entity is constituted as a partnership, however, Annexure-III does not disclose the name of its partners, it is only by way of leave to defend that it is contended that it is run by Aman Jain. No other document has been put forth to prove or to even indicate that the aforesaid business is independently run by Aman Jain. Per contra, petitioner has denied such contention, it is claimed that business is not run by Aman Jain, rather during the course of arguments, it was submitted that the said business is run by the petitioner and his elder son namely Ashwini Jain.
