Civil Revision No. 1422 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1422 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.3.2010 Surinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Asha Mehta ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The concurrent finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority upholding the plea raised by the respondent-landlady that she requires the tenanted premises for the use and occupation of self and her family members as her husband had retired from the employment of All India Radio and Door-darshan, is fully relate-able to the material obtaining on the file. The documentation Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW5/4 is supportive of the plea with regard to retirement of the husband of the respondent-landlady from All India Radio and Door Darshan. The categorical evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent-landlady to the effect that she, along with her husband and other members of her family, is putting up in a rented accommodation in Delhi and that she wants to shift to tenanted premises at Amritsar could not be contradicted at the trial. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Civil Revision No. 1422 of 2010 -2- argues that the children of the respondent-landlord are public servants who are in employment at Delhi and there is no reason why the respondent-lamdlady would like to shift over to tenanted premises at Amritsar. On that premise, the plea raised is that ejection action is not bonafide. There is no warrant for the factual and legal proposition expounded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. It is not the averment that premises where the public servants children of respondent-landlady putting up are owned by her owned by her. Those children are proved to be putting up in a rented accommodation. The tenanted premises are owned by the respondent-landlady. We have to give it to her to decide where exactly she would like to reside i.e. whether she would like to reside in the rented accommodation at Delhi in the company of her children of she and her husband would like to shift to the tenanted premises at Amritsar. She had exercise the option in favour of latter. There is no reason to deny it to her. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 16, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE