The landlord is best judge of his reasonable and bonafide requirements.
The Apex Court in Julieta Antonieta Tarcato vs. Suleiman Ismail, 2008 (1) S.C.C. 173, has observed another facet of bonafide need as under: "The appellant being the owner of the suit ( 8 )
premises, her need being bonafide and reasonable, it would be unfair to compel her to share the accommodation in another premises with its co-owner."
17. As given facts and circumstances of the case itself, not to grant decree for possession is incorrect, contrary to the law and the record. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the need of the landlord is not reasonable or bonafide or it is for any ulterior motive. (Motor Cycle House and Metro Cottage Industries, Pune & Anr. Vs. Kamalabai Dattatraya Kale & Ors. 2005 (3), Mh.L.J.1109), Mh.L.J.1109)
(Narayan Rajaram Alchetty vs. Balamma Baburao Shrirekam & Anr, 2005 Bom R.C.426). The landlord is best judge of his reasonable and bonafide requirements. The Petitioner/landlady cannot be deprived of beneficial enjoyment of her property. (Prativa Devi (Smt) Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 353.
