alone and not of the landlord. As a matter of fact, eviction was sought by the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act for the need of his dependant son, and therefore, it cannot be said that the statement that it was a need of the landlord and his dependant son was not wholly incorrect. At any rate, both the issues mentioned above cannot in any manner affect the bonafide of the claims preferred by the landlord. The trial court also found that going by the principles in Atma Ram Chauhan & others (supra), since the rent was fixed on mutually agreed terms, the landlord should not bring an action for eviction for at least a period of five years. We do not think that the said decision stated any principle like that applicable to all cases where rent was fixed between the landlord and the tenant, and in such cases, the landlord is barred from filing a petition for eviction for a period of five years. As rightly found by the appellate court, there was no fair rent fixed within the meaning of the Act in the instant case, and as such, the tenant cannot take recourse to the judgment in Atma Ram Chauhan & others (supra). Though the trial court did not consider the aspect of the provisos as it found against the need of the landlord, the appellate court had considered the aspect of the provisos and held that there was no evidence to show that the landlord had any building in his possession suitable for his business. Admittedly, the accounts of the tenants that showed that they were mainly dependent on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop rooms were not also produced, which clearly dis-entitled them to the benefit of the proviso, which mandates the tenant to prove both the limbs of the same so as to claim protection. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the appellate
