IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4013 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.7.2010 Raj Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Chameli Devi and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition by the tenant is directed against the orders dated 11.9.2008 of the learned Rent Controller and dated 19.3.2010 of the Appellate Authority. The respondents/landlords initiated a petition for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent and for personal necessity. The petitioner, who contested the proceedings, disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Both the Courts determined that the premises in question were required by the respondents/landlords, and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioner is in revision and he has tried to make out a case to say that the bona fide need as determined in the impugned orders is not made out from the evidence on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the C.R.No.4013 of 2010 (O&M) -2- petitioner that the respondents had a residential and commercial property at Ambala and therefore there was no requirement for them to shift to Moga. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the argument raised before this court is patently fallacious. It is for the landlord to decide for his own needs. The Supreme Court in Atma S.Brar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 42 has held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. The respondents, who have categorically stated that they wish to shift to Moga, have every right to decide their place of residence and merely because they have residential house in another State would not make any difference to their case. That apart the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence as he has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and a tenant who denies such a relationship obviously displays his dishonesty. Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the petition which deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that he has instructions from his client to plead that in the event of his being granted four-month time, he shall hand over the vacant physical possession of the premises in question to the respondents. I have considered this prayer and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the demised premises for some time, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with the following directions :- C.R.No.4013 of 2010 (O&M) -3- i) That the petitioner shall furnish an affidavit before the Rent Controller at Moga within a period of three weeks from today an undertaking to vacate the premises in question and hand over the physical possession to the respondents within four months from today. ii) That the petitioner shall restore the possession of the premises in question to the respondents without damage to the property and he shall not make any alteration or addition to the property and also continue to pay the rent at the agreed rate by the 7th of each month and shall also pay all the arrears, if any, on account of rent or any other terms of the tenancy while furnishing the undertaking, i.e. within three weeks. iii) That the petitioner shall also record in the undertaking that he would be bound by the terms of such an undertaking and shall not make any attempt to wriggle out of the same. 6.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss