C.R No. 4081 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 4081 of 2007 Date of decision : March 17, 2008 Maiya Devi & others, ...... Petitioners through Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate v. Sadhu Ram & others, ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** RAJIVE BHALLA,J Challenge in this revision is to the orders, dated 3.5.2006 and 5.6.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Zira and the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur ordering the petitioners' ejectment and dismissing their appeal against the order of ejectment respectively. The landlords-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioners and respondent No.3 on the grounds of non payment of rent, and that as respondent No.2 retired from service as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana in the year 1991, he requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation so as to start private practice as a Veterinary doctor. The petitioners and respondent No.3 denied the aforementioned assertions. C.R No. 4081 of 2007 ::2:: The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- “1. Whether respondent is in arrear of rent since 1.11.1980 ? OPA 2. Whether the demised premises is required by applicants for personal bona fide requirements ? OPA 3. Whether petition is not maintainable ? OPR 4. Whether applicant has no cause of action to file present petition ? OPR 5. Whether application is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 6. Relief.” As the petitioners and respondent No.3 tendered arrears of rent, the issue with respect to non payment of rent, namely, issue No.1 was not pressed. The issue with respect to ejectment on the plea of bona fide necessity was accepted and it was held that though respondent No.2 had retired from service on 30.11.1991, and had shifted to Delhi due to terrorist activities in Punjab, he had returned to set up his practice. It was held, as a matter of fact, that respondents No.1 and 2's plea of necessity was bona fide and consequently, the petitioners' ejectment was ordered. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioners filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 5.6.2007. Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 retired from government service in the year 1991and is admittedly 73 years old. It is submitted that as respondent No.2 is not a permanent resident of Zira, his plea of bona fide necessity should not have been accepted by the Courts below. It is asserted that the plea of bona fide necessity, based upon the C.R No. 4081 of 2007 ::3:: plea of retirement from government service, and the desire to start practice as a veterinary doctor is incorrect. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. Both the learned Rent Controller, as also the Appellate Authority have returned concurrent findings of fact that the necessity pleaded by the landlord, namely, respondent No.2 is bona fide. The concurrent findings of fact, returned by the Courts below, do not merit interference as they do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law. The Courts below, after a considered appraisal of pleadings and evidence on record, upheld the bona fides of the plea of necessity. As noticed herein above, the ejectment of the petitioners and respondent No.3 was sought on the ground that respondent No.2 wanted to start practice as a veterinary doctor. The submissions, pressed into service by counsel for the petitioners, that the respondents have other properties within the limits of Municipal Council, Zira, namely, property Nos.233, 334 and 335 do not, in my considered opinion, advance the petitioners' case in any manner. The nature of his necessity, the extent thereof and the premises suited thereto fall to the choice of a landlord. The fact that the landlord may have other premises would be an irrelevant consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Another contention, pressed into service, by counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 is more than 74 years old and, therefore, would not be able to start his practice, has been dealt with in detail by the Courts below and does not merit acceptance. As pure findings of fact have not impugned and no error of law has been asserted, the present revision C.R No. 4081 of 2007 ::4:: petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. However, the petitioners and respondent No.3 are granted three months' time from today to vacate the demised premises. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) March 17, 2008. JUDGE `kk'