Civil Revision No.67 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.67 of 2009 Date of decision:09.01.2009 Rakesh Kumar and others .............. Petitioner Vs. Shekhar Bither and Ors. .............Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The revision petition is directed against two concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority respectively upholding the claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the building. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have upheld that the contention of the first petitioner that he is to take the final examination of C.A. and that he is already working as a private agent for ICICI Prudential Insurance and that further he wants to establish his business in shares. So a contention that the son had not passed his C.A. exam even at the trial, the Appellate Authority has reasoned that it would be always possible for the landlord, even if he is illiterate, to commence and carry on a business and it was immaterial that the 2nd petitioner had not become a fully qualified Chartered Accountant. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner assails the findings of Courts below on the ground that the first petitioner before the Rent Controller is gainfully employed in a private company and there is no need for him to leave the job and take up the business. The Court cannot go into Civil Revision No.67 of 2009 -2- the mind of the landlord to decide as to whether he wants to continue in private employment or to carry on business. It shall be the option of the landlord that will be given precedence. The Courts below have not seen any oblique motive on the part of the landlord but has upheld the claim by entering a finding of fact that the requirement is bona fide. Nothing avails to the revision petitioner to contend that such findings are perverse and wrong and I am not persuaded to take a different opinion from how the Courts below have approached the issue. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed as without merits. 3. The petitioner seeks for some reasonable time to vacate the premises. The petitioner contends that he is carrying on a business and he would require some time to re-locate himself to some other property. Six months time is granted for eviction from the date of order. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 09, 2008 Pankaj*