IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8235 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:31.01.2011 Naveen Jain . . .Petitioner Versus Kiran Sud . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against orders passed by the Courts below by which petitioner has been evicted on the ground of personal necessity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the demised premises was once owned by Ayudhya Parshad, who had died on 11.4.1997 and has left behind three shops out of which the demised premises is alleged to have fallen to the share of the respondent, who is claiming her ownership by virtue of a registered Will dated 30.7.1996. The respondent had set up a case for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that after retirement of her husband, she wants to settle in Hoshiarpur and for that purpose she requires the demised premises for doing business of general store which was earlier done by her father. It is also alleged that she had three sons, who are pursuing their studies. Earlier she had been carrying on her family on the pension of her husband which has now become insufficient to meet the monthly requirements of her family. Therefore, the demised premises was required for the purpose of running the business. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent in her cross-examination has alleged that the rent of all the shops was earlier recovered by her brother and she did not even know the petitioner. Be that as it may, after the respondent has become the owner of the demised premises, by virtue of the registered Will dated 30.7.1996, she has stepped into the shoes of her father and is entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity, which has been established by her by leading cogent evidence. No other argument has been raised. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. January 31, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vivek JUDGE