IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2313 of 2006. Date of Decision:- 28.8.2008. Suman Sharma & others ... Petitioners Versus Akash Juneja ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH. J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated March 16, 2006 of Appellate Authority, Chandigarh under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the 'Act'), whereby, the order dated April 17, 2004 of the Rent Controller dismissing the petition for ejectment was upset and the eviction petition was accepted by ordering ejectment of the petitioners before this Court from the demised premises, that is, shop No. 71 village Burail. Facts necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are that Akash Juneja, the landlord of the demised premies sought eviction of the tenants Suman Sharma widow, Sumit Pal Sharma son and Deepika Sharma daughter of late Jai Gopal Sharma from the demised premises. The eviction petition failed before the Rent Controller and was dismissed. Thereupon, the landlord preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act which succeeded. The eviction was sought on two grounds namely non- payment of rent and bona-fide personal necessity for own use and occupation of the demised premises by the landlord. The dispute regarding non-payment of rent no more survives. The only ground to be considered is as to whether the demised premises is bona-fidely required by the landlord for his own occupation or not. There is catena of authorities for the proposition that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is always the prerogative of the landlord to decide for what purpose he requires premises in question. It is not tenant who can dictate terms to landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of landlord to choose the nature and place of business. It has been so ruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Company Limited versus Vimalabai Prabhulal and others (2005) 8 SCC 252. The landlord, in this case, is holding a Diploma/Degree in Pharmacy and he intends to run a chemist shop in the demised building. It has not been shown by any circumstance that his requirement is not bonafide or that he has alternative accommodation to run the intended business. Even if the mother of the landlord owns an adjoining shop, the landlord cannot be compelled to occupy those premises for running a chemist shop. Why the mother should be compelled to accommodate the landlord even though he is her son. The tenants have no satisfactory answer to this. Moreover, the mother of the landlord is under no obligation to accommodate her son in her own shop. It was also not shown that the landlord had vacated any premises as contemplated under the Act. The suitability of the premises and the convenience have to be seen from the angle of the landlord. It may be stressed at the cost of repetition that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential and business purposes as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ragavendra Kumar versus Firm Prem Machinery & Company 2001 (1) Rent Controller Reporter 135. Learned Appellate Authority appreciated the evidence in correct perspective by adopting a pragmatic approach in accepting the appeal and the impugned judgment dated March 16, 2006 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and does not admit of interference in revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) 28.8.2008. JUDGE SN