Civil Revision No. 6381 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6381 of 2009 Date of decision : 22.2.2010 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Deepak and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The tenant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-tenant) is in revision against the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority upholding, in turn, the view of the learned Rent Controller to the effect that the respondent-landlord had been able to prove that he requires the tenanted premises for personal bonafide necessity. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant argues that the plea raised by the respondent-landlord requires invalidation for the very simple reason that petition did not, at all, indicate who out of the two petitioners required the premises for personal bonafide necessity. The plea raised is completely denuded of merit. It is noticed in the finding of learned Appellate Authority that petitioner (Deepak) stepped into the witness box, as his own witness, and testified on oath that he requires the premises for personal bonafide necessity and he was not cross-examined on that point. In that view of things, it is no longer upon to the petitioner-tenant to argue in favour of Civil Revision No. 6381 of 2009 -2- **** invalidation of the finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner also has a grievance that PW-1 Deepak had conceded that he is doing business as a junk dealer. The argument proceeds that, in the absence of any averment or proof to the effect that junk dealer business had collapsed, the respondent- landlord cannot raise a plea for ejectment of the petitioner from the tenanted premises aforementioned. It is apparent from the record that Deepak-respondent- landlord is only a junk seller who collects junk objects and sells those off to an indicated dealer. It is, thus, not that he is running any business as a junk dealer in any premise. All that he is proved to be presently doing is collecting junk articles by roaming around the towns and to sell those off to an indicated junk dealer at a premium. In that view of things, there is no justification to doubt the bonafides of his statement that he wants to run business in the tenanted premises. No other point has been raised. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand dismissed in limine. The petitioner-tenant shall have two months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. February 22, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE