Civil Revision No.7060 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7060 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:10.02.2009 Santosh Kumari and another .............. Petitioners Vs. Smt. Neelam Rani .............Respondent Present: Mr. R.K. Battas, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemraj Bhardwaj, 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. (ORAL) 1. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dealt with the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlord on the plea that she required the property for starting a business for her son in the petition mentioned premises. The revision petitioner is the tenant, who has been ordered to be ejected. 2. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that yet another shop, which is available with the landlord, had been admitted to have been rented out three or four years before the evidence given in Court. Not too sure about the date of actual letting, the learned Senior Counsel would venture to state that the letting had taken place in the year 1995. According to him, if the landlord required the property for setting up a business for her son after he passed his Diploma in Computers, which date was found to be on 02.08.1995, the landlord could not have had a genuine need to evict the respondent. She ought to have located her own son without letting it out to Tip Top Cleaners. The argument has only stated to be rejected since there was no definite case that Civil Revision No.7060 of 2008 (O&M) -2- at the relevant time when the landlord required the premises for her son, there was any property in the occupation of the landlord or the landlord had not vacated any such building without reasonable cause to disentitle the landlord from obtaining eviction. The Courts below have considered the issue on the factual perspective that there was no legal impediment for the landlord to obtain eviction and the need expressed in the petition had been adequately proved. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority and the revision petition stands dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 10, 2009 Pankaj*