he had actually parted with `30,000/- towards advance. The agreement did not fructify into a sale deed but this according to the tenant was a proof of lack of bona fides of the landlord. The Appellate Authority which was affirming the judgment of the Rent Controller observed that if the landlord had no other property in the same Village or town and that he did not want to live as a parasite on the earnings of his son there was nothing artificial or improper in the contention of the landlord wanting to set up his own business. Adverting to the objection of the tenant that there had been initially an offer of sale by the landlord, the Appellate Authority observed that there was not even a pleading with reference to this agreement in the reply filed by the tenant and all the evidence relating to the agreement was therefore of no consequence. He also reasoned that even if there were an agreement, it had not ultimately culminate as sale and the tenant himself had not sought for any specific relief for getting the agreement enforced. I do not find any error in the reasoning of the Court below. The order of ejectment made finding the bona fide need as established does not suffer from any vice for interference in revision.
