Civil Revision No. 7373 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7373 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:5th July, 2011 Amolak Singh .......Petitioner Versus Bimla Devi Rayit ........Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Cheema, Advocate for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Vide impugned judgment ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered by the Rent Controller after allowing him to contest the eviction petition filed by NRI landlord-respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner does not need the demised premises bonafidely for her use as there is ample accommodation available for her personal need and necessity. Civil Revision No. 7373 of 2010(O&M) 2 Admittedly, the petitioner is a NRI and old lady. She wants to settle in her mother land at the fag end of her life. It is well settled that the land lord is the best judge of her/needs. The petitioner was granted permission to contest before the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, who after appreciating the evidence on record has recorded a finding that the need of the respondent land lady is genuine and bona fide. The question whether personal necessity of the land lord is genuine or not, is a question of fact. It is well settled that the revisional court should be slow to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction unless findings are perverse. After perusal of the findings which are based on appreciation of evidence, it cannot be said that they are perverse. Dismissed. [RAKESH KUMAR GARG] JUDGE 5th July, 2011 Shivani Kaushik