Civil Revision No. 1217of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1217 of 2008 Date of decision : 27.5.2010 Bihari Lal ....Petitioner Versus Urmila Devi and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.C.Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The learned Rent Controller upheld a plea raised by the respondents-landladies (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”), for ejectment of the petitioner from commercial Booth No.1, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, on a finding of personal bonafide necessity. Simultaneously, a counter claim by the petitioner-tenant for refund of the excess amount paid as rent was allowed. The learned Rent Controller held that the agreed rate of rent had been proved to be Rs.700/- per month; whereas the rent by the petitioner- tenant at the time was at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month which the petitioner-tenant had to compulsively pay in order to avoid imminent eviction. The respondents have not opted to file an appeal against the allowance of the counter claim. Learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding on Civil Revision No. 1217of 2008 -2- **** point of personal bonafide necessity in favour of the respondents. The petitioner-tenant has come up in revision against the allowance of ejectment plea. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant, argued that the petition deserves outright disallowance in view of the fact that one of the respondents is daughter-in-law of the other respondent and the law would not permit eviction of a tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment that the landlady thereof requires the tenanted premises for use by her daughter-in- law who cannot be termed to be dependent upon the landlady in terms of the rent legislation. The plea deserves to be negatived. The evidence on record is to the effect that tenanted premises had been purchased by both the respondents from their predecessor-in-interest, vide sale deed dated 18.6.2003. Both of them raised a plea for ejectment on an averment that they needed it for the personal bonafide necessity. It is, thus, not a case where one landlady (mother-in-law) is requiring the vacation of the tenanted premises for personal bonafide necessity of her daughter-in-law. The plea is, thus, infructuous on the face of it in view of the proven position that the tenanted premises had been purchased by both the respondents, vide sale deed dated 18.6.2003. It was, then, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the respondents do have other commercial premises as well which they can utilise for the projected personal Civil Revision No. 1217of 2008 -3- **** bonafide necessity. This plea too deserves to be negatived. Though there is evidence that the respondents do own Booth No.2 as well and they presently running their business therein by removing the intervening wall, we have to give it to the respondents to decide which premises they have found suitable for running the projected business. In this case, it is in the substantive testimony of the respondents that the tenanted premises are more suitable for running their projected business. The petitioner-tenant has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any material available on the record on the basis whereof it would be argued that the averment made by the respondents to the above effect is factually incorrect. 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. May 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 1217of 2008 -4- ****