CR No.7305 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7305 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:16.02.2011. Mangal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Varinder Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Gagan Pradeep S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises. Ram Kishan landlord (since deceased) filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] against Mangal Singh (tenant) for his eviction from the shops marked as ABCD in the site plan, situated in Ward No.7, Garhshankar which were allegedly let out to him on 01.07.1984 at a monthly rent of `250/- for the purpose of running a sweets shop. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the landlord is working as Munshi at a brick-kiln and his son Varinder Kumar has also started working as Munshi at the brick-kiln. Since the landlord has become old and is unable to work as Munshi at the brick-kiln and is drawing a meager salary, it is very difficult in making two ends meet and the salary of his son is also meager who is married having two sons, one of whom is a student of engineering, therefore, the landlord sought re-occupation of the demised premises on vacation by the tenant on the ground of personal necessity of himself and his son Varinder Kumar. Ram Kishan died during the pendency of the eviction petition on 10.01.2008 and Varinder Kumar was allowed to replace him vide order dated 11.10.2008. The tenant contested the application on the ground that after the death of Ram Kishan, the personal requirement has ceased to exist and is not available for his legal representative. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were CR No.7305 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** framed and both the parties led their respective evidence in order to prove those issues which are burdened upon them, but the primary issue was with regard to the personal necessity of the landlord. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below after a detailed discussion in respect of the personal necessity holding that the landlord had not only sought the possession of the shops for his personal necessity, but also for the bona fide necessity of his son who was doing a temporary job of Munshi at a brick-kiln and was drawing a meager salary of `2,000/- per month despite the fact that he has two sons, one of whom is doing engineering and the second one is studying in the school. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently to assail the finding recorded by the Courts below on issue No.1 in which personal necessity of the landlord has been established yet he has failed to make any dent by pointing out any perversity, therefore, I do not find any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below in order to disturb their finding on issue No.1. Hence, the present revision petition is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, though without any order as to costs. February 16, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE