Coming to examine the question regarding sustainability of the findings of the impugned order with respect of the bona-fide genuine requirement of the disputed shop to the respondent is concerned. In paragraph 6 of the respondent's application filed under Section 23-A (b) of the Act it is stated that after vacating the disputed premises by the applicant and the adjoining premises by tenant Gyasilal the respondent and his both sons want to start their business for which they did not possess any other suitable accommodation of their own in the town of Tikamgarh. They had sufficient fund and means for such business. Accordingly they are in bona- fide genuine need of the alleged shop. It is noted that except these pleading, in order to show bona-fide genuine requirement the averments of the available vacant accommodation of their own in such town are not pleaded. On the other hand in the written statement of the applicant by denying the aforesaid alleged need of the respondent, it is stated that the respondent is running his own business in some other shop. Besides this some other vacant shops of his own are also lying with him. In such premises the alleged need of the respondent is neither bona-fide nor genuine. In pendency of the case by amendment in paragraph 7, it is stated that a son of the respondent namely Sanjay was running his shop situated near Chhotidevi in Mukhya Bazar but because lot of competition in the business he voluntarily has closed the aforesaid shop. The same was not got vacated by his landlord but the same was voluntarily vacated by Sanjay. So far other son is concerned, it is stated that he got employment as contract teacher in the state government. Therefore, such need is not in existence. It is also stated that in pendency of the case respondent also let out a vacant shop to some person on tenancy, inspite it the respondent is still having two vacant shops with him for the alleged need. By referring the case law of the Apex Court in the matter of Bhagwat Dutt Rishi Vs. Ram Kumar reported in (1990) 1 SCC 324, it was argued by Shri Ravish Agrawal that according to law laid down in this case only that public servant could be deemed to be the specified landlord under Section 23-J(i) of the Act who actually leased out the disputed premises while he was a member of such service.