Civil Revision No. 4412 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4412 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.4.2010 Krishan Chand and others ...Petitioners Versus Ranjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. A.K.Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.N.Raina, Advocate for the respondent S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioners-tenants, who face an order of eviction at the hands of learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority, are in revision to obtain the invalidation of the orders aforementioned. The respondent-landlord had applied for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant (presently represented by his legal representatives though they would be described hereinafter as well as the respondent) on an averment that the tenanted premises are required for use by his son Daljit Singh, a practicing lawyer who requires the premises for use as office. The plea was resisted by the petitioner-tenant who argued that the indicated son of respondent-landlord is not in actual practice and he is earning his living by running a chemist shop. Civil Revision No. 4412 of 2009 -2- **** Both the Courts recorded a finding of fact upholding the plea raised by the respondent-landlord and negativing the pleading- related resistance indicated by the petitioners-tenants. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that it is in evidence that the indicated son of the respondent-landlord does not have professional work of any significance and this fact is borne out by the production of law diary wherein only few cases have been entered. It was also argued that the respondent-landlord had not been able to clarify where exactly his indicated son has been having his office since the year 1987 when he is averred to have started his practice. Want of evidence in the relevant behalf, the argument proceeded, would go a long way to fortify the plea that the raising of plea aforementioned is a ruse to obtain vacation of the tenanted premises. I find the plea to be completely bereft on merits. The reasons therefor are as under:- It is not necessary that an Advocate must have a minimum number of briefs before he can claim entitlement for being declared as an Advocate or functional member of the Bar. Uncertainties of legal profession being that those are, all that one would require to prove is that he is an enrolled Advocate and that he is having certain number of briefs to handle. The laying down of minimum bench mark in the matter of number of briefs held by the claimant would be an unacceptable proposition. Insofar as the latter part of the argument is concerned, Civil Revision No. 4412 of 2009 -3- **** there also the petitioner-tenant is not on a firmer footing. Whereever from the indicated son of the respondent-landlord may have been running his practice is not relevant for determination of the validity or otherwise of the plea presently raised that he requires the tenanted premises for use as office. That the landlord is the best judge of his requirement (which expression would also include the requirement of his dependent children) was held by the Apex Court in Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar Vs. M/s Traders & Agencies & Another 1996 (2) Apex Court Journal 128 (SC). Even otherwise, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.S.Zehad Vs. K. Raghvan 1998 (2) RCR 628. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. April 27 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge