Civil Revision No. 6677 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6677 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.11.2011 *** Ishwar Singh .. Petitioner VS. Ram Ji Dass Nijhawan .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the Courts below, pursuant to a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, by the respondent, have ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shop in question, on the ground of personal necessity, though the other ground of non-payment of rent and material impairment were disbelieved. Heard. The impugned judgments have been challenged on the ground that the need of the landlord is not bonafide and is smeared with greed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the grandson of landlord, for whose alleged necessity to open a law office, the eviction has been sought, is not practising at Kaithal where the shop in dispute is situated and is enrolled as an advocate at Chandigarh. There is no substance in the said contention. The landlord, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, proved that he is in bonafide need of the shop in dispute for starting law office for his grandson, who admittedly is an Advocate. No doubt, it has come on record that grandson was enrolled with Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, but from this only it cannot be inferred that he is not practising Civil Revision No. 6677 of 2011 2 at Kaithal. No evidence, worth of any credence, was led by the petitioner- tenant to show that the grandson of the landlord is not residing or practising Advocate at Kaithal or that there was an element of greed and not of need in the alleged requirement of the landlord. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below require no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to the manner in which he requires a particular premises for his personal requirement and it is open to the landlord to make a choice between the nature of the business to be carried out and where. The findings arrived at by the Courts below are neither illegal nor perverse and it cannot be said that the same are based on no evidence. The instant petition, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) November 02,2011 JUDGE Jiten