Prasad[17] , wherein it is held that it is for the landlord to choose a suitable premises, and vacating the other premises belonging to the landlord during pendency of the eviction petition is not a ground to deny the eviction of the tenant. Similarly, in Garapati Venkata Sitaramachandra Prasad V. Nayani Chalapathi Rao[18] , this Court held that possessing more than one building in the city, town or village and the landlord being in occupation of one of such buildings, is not a ground to deny the eviction of the of the defendant on the ground of bona fide requirement. In view of law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Courts, it is for the landlord to choose suitable premises to carry on his business and the tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord to occupy a particular premises, which fell vacant during eviction proceedings. On this ground, the eviction petition cannot be dismissed. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of counsel for the respondent that petitioner landlord failed to occupy the premises, which fell vacant during eviction proceedings, this itself is sufficient to disbelieve the bona fides, is not accepted. However, in view of law declared by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation’s case and M/s. Seshambal’s case due to death of landlord the bona fide requirement of premises by the landlord is ceases to exist. Even otherwise the material evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the claim of bona fide requirement of the landlord to evict the tenant in occupation.
