Civil Revision No. 4474 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4474 of 2009 Date of decision : 27.5.2010 Dr. Ram Pubby ....Petitioner Versus Rakshit Khosla ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ambika Negi, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Both the Forums (learned Rent Controller as also learned Appellate Authority ) upheld the plea raised by respondent-landlord for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, argues that there being material on record to prove that another shop owned by the respondent is lying closed, the respondent-landlord cannot be heard to plead bonafides in raising the ejectment plea. There has to be a reason, the argument proceeds, on account of which the respondent-landlord would justify refrain from utilising that shop for the projected business. Civil Revision No. 4474 of 2009 -2- **** There is no doubt that it is in evidence that respondent- landlord owns yet another shop which is lying closed. However, that by itself would not validate the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner- tenant. In the absence of any proof of malafides in the context, we would give it to the landlord to decide which property exactly he would like to utilise for the projected business. It will, of course, be open to the tenant to submit that the plea raised is malafide for want of whatever ought to go into consideration for deciding upon a premises for running projected business. However, in the present case there is no evidence to that effect. The plea shall, accordingly, stand negatived. It is, then, argued by learned Senior Counsel that respondent-landlord would not enter into occupation of the tenanted premises for running the projected business and would like to sell it off to a third party. The apprehension entertained by the petitioner-tenant is misconceived. Even otherwise, the rent legislation provides in-built mechanism where under a tenant ejected on a finding of personal necessity can get restitution if the tenanted premises vacated by him are not occupied by the landlord within a period of one year therefrom. If such an eventuality materializes, the law will take care of the dereliction. No other point has been argued. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. In view of the Civil Revision No. 4474 of 2009 -3- **** conceded position that the respondent-landlord has already obtained possession of the tenanted premises, no further orders in the context are required. May 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 4474 of 2009 -4- ****