Civil Revision No. 95 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 95 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.1.2010 Gurbax Singh ....Petitioner Versus Sohan Lal ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller upholding the plea of the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the petitioner herein on an averment of bonafide requirement for personal use and occupation was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The plea,raised in the context, was that premises are required for use by a handicapped son of respondent-landlord who is presently working as tailor in a Baithak of the residential house. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant, argues that the premises available with the handicapped son of the respondent are adequate enough for him to run the business of tailoring and the plea raised is a pure and simple ruse to obtain ejectment. It is also the plea that the respondent-landlord had given another shop (owned by him) on rent to some other person which act Civil Revision No. 95 of 2010 -2- **** of his is indicative of want of bonafides on his part applied for his ejectment. Insofar as the latter item of grievance is concerned, there was no evidence supportive thereof. The petitioner-tenant had filed an application under Order 41 Ruler 27 C.P.C. to obtain the leave of the Court to adduce evidence in the relevant behalf but that plea was declined by the learned Appellate Authority by holding that the plea raised lack bonafides. Thus, there is no evidence on record which could be said to be supportive of plea aforementioned. It is in the own statement of the respondent-landlord that the building, of which the shop under reference is a part, consists of six shops which he had let out when all his sons, including the handicapped son, were minors. He further testified on oath that he is not in possession of any shop out of that building. There is no evidence is adequate enough to rebut that statement of the respondent-landlord. It would be relevant to indicate, in the context, that it was conceded by none else or other than Mohan Lal RW-2 that there is no shop in possession of respondent-landlord which he could use for himself and his son and that the handicapped son of the respondent-landlord is in possession of only a Baithak. There can be no dispute with the proposition that a landlord is entitled to require a tenant to vacate the premises if the former requires it for use and occupation by one of his children. In view, thus, of the fact that the respondent-landlord had been in a concurrence of finding, held to be in bonafide need of tenanted Civil Revision No. 95 of 2010 -3- **** premises for use and occupation by his handicapped son, the petition would deem to be disallowed. I find that the Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority had recorded a well reasoned concurrent finding which does not call for any interference. The petition shall stand dismissed. However, the petitioner-tenant is given one month time from today to vacate the premises under reference. January 11,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE