building by the tenant for putting up a non-residential use. The appellate Court found as regards the personal requirement of the premises that the landlord had admitted to the ownership of yet another Door No.1-A/257, NIT, Faridabad, but it was a nonresidential property let out for commercial activity to one M/s Blue Steel Private Limited. Referring to the recitals in the rent deed which specifically contained a recital that the user of the premises shall be only for residential purpose, the Court held that the property was therefore only residential and the landlord could not have sought for eviction of the other building in 1-A/257 for his own personal need. Even otherwise, if there was more than one building of which the landlord was the owner, both of which were not in his possession, it was always left to the choice of the landlord as to which property he would secure eviction. The existence of another property in the name of the landlord himself was not in dispute, but if it was in the hand of yet another tenant and it was put to a nonresidential use. Evidently, the landlord could not have directed eviction in respect of the said property.
