IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6608 of 2008 Date of Decision : 20.7.2010 Shanti Devi ....Petitioner Versus Tarawati and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Bhoop Singh, Advocate for Mr.Suveer S. Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is landlady's petition seeking eviction of the respondents which has been declined by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The eviction of the respondents was sought on three grounds, namely, non-payment of rent, sub-letting and bona fide need. The rent was tendered in Court and thus the ground of non- payment of rent became redundant between the parties. The grounds of sub-letting and bona fide necessity were negatived by both the courts below. Assailing the said findings, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the only ground to decline the petitioner's right to seek eviction was that the bona fide need as expressed by her C.R.No.6608 of 2008 -2- was not appreciated in the right perspective. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both observed that the petitioner had concealed the fact that she was having another shop in the adjoining area of the shop in question and that in the event of her being desirous of settling his son in business, the area could be utilised which was already available to her. Thus the plea of personal necessity was negatived. The learned counsel for petitioner referred to the statement of respondent No.1 Tarawati wherein she has stated the dimension of the demised shop which is about 10x18 ft. in length and similar in width, but in so far as other shop is concerned, the dimension is given out to be much lesser in area indicating that the said shop was not conducive for the petitioner and thus sought to derive a benefit from the statement made by the said respondent. I am afraid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated in the manner in which he wishes the court to do so. The petitioner did not make the pleadings which are required to establish the ground of bona fide necessity. It was open to her to plead that there was no other shop suitable for the business of her son and the shop available was very small and was not conducive for his son as its dimension was small enough and the shop which has been occupied by the respondents were the premises which were best suited to her need. In the absence of such pleadings by the petitioner, who was required to establish her case in the affirmative, she cannot derive any benefit from the statement made by respondent No.1. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have thus rightly appreciated the matter. Consequently, this Court C.R.No.6608 of 2008 -3- does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 20.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss