CR No.2310 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2310 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:05.04.2011. Rafiq Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus K.S.Grewal ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the order of eviction passed by the Courts below. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] in order to seek eviction of the petitioner/tenant from Booth No.16, Sector 30-D, Chandigarh, which was let out to him in the month of July 1985 at a monthly rent of `900/- excluding water and electricity charges, inter alia, on the grounds of personal necessity and arrears of rent. The eviction petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller which led to the filing of two appeals, one by the tenant, i.e. Rent Appeal No.30 of 25.09.2009 titled as `Rafiq Ahmad V. K.S.Grewal', and another by the landlord, i.e. Rent Appeal No.34 of 23.10.2009 titled as `K.S.Grewal V. Rafiq Ahmad'. The tenant obviously challenged the eviction order in his appeal, whereas the landlord filed appeal on the issue that the learned Rent Controller has declined him the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.08.1993 to 30.11.2003 as it has found the tenant to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.12.2003 onwards @ `1,350/- CR No.2310 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** per month. The learned Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 30.11.2010, dismissed both the appeals but it was held that the rate of rent of the demised premises was @ `900/- per month. Aggrieved against the order of eviction, the present revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioner though has tried to assail the finding of the Courts below on the issue of personal necessity of the landlord, but he has miserably failed to cause any dent in the well considered findings recorded by the Courts below by which the Courts below have held that the landlord is the best judge of his need and his need is quite genuine as he wants to start business of shoes in the demised premises. No other ground has been raised. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, though without any order as to costs. April 05, 2011. ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge