CR No.1803 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1803 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.3.2011 M/s Harbans Lal Ram Parkash & Co. . . .Petitioner Versus Satwant Singh . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Anuj Raura, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is tenant’s revision against orders of both the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the premises in dispute on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. In brief, the landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) in order to seek ejectment of the tenant from the garage portion of House No.1058/3, Top Khana Road, Patiala on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide necessity. Since the rent was tendered in Court, the ground of eviction of arrears of rent become redundant but the other ground of personal necessity was upheld by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority by its order dated 22.7.2008 and 10.1.2011, respectively. The landlord had proved that he has retired from service and now the demised premises is required for the purpose of starting a PCO. The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is as under: “The landlord is the best judge as to which business he was to carry on. Even otherwise for running a PCO and that too for a retired person is the best business which could be run by an old and infirm person. It does not require any technical know-how. It would have not only supplemented the income of the landlord but CR No.1803 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - would have also helped him in involving himself in a fruitful manner. For a retired person it is not the status which matters but is it only the utilization of the time which he has at disposal, which is to be taken care of. Even otherwise a business which a retired person can pursue is only of a supervisory nature. Running of a PCO is very light work and the same matches with the energy and stamina of a retired person. Merely settling of the children abroad does not mean that one does not require the premises for running his own business because business is adopted by a retired person not only to earn livelihood but also for the utilization of the time as well. Even otherwise one would not like to beg and borrow from his kids as independent source of income is also required for a retired person. Thus need put forth by the landlord was genuine.” Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently to persuade this Court to take a view different from the view taken by both the Courts below in respect of personal necessity set up by the landlord but he has miserably failed to point out any error much less legal in the orders passed by both the Courts below. Hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 15, 2011 JUDGE Vivek