C.R.No.2841 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.2841 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:3.10.2011 S.Jagtar Singh ...Petitioner vs Mrs.Kuldip Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of his eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent- landlord. To challenge the impugned order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller,Amritsar, and the judgment of the Appellate Authority whereby the said order of eviction was upheld, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it has been established on record that during the pendency of eviction proceedings, son of the petitioner had taken another shop on rent, and therefore, his need stood fulfilled and he is not requiring the shop in question, and in view of these facts the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The argument raised is without any merit. It is well settled that need of the landlord is to be seen at the time of filing of the ejectment petition. At that time, admittedly son of the landlord was not occupying any such shop in the urban area concerned neither he has vacated any such shop without sufficient cause. Simply C.R.No.2841 of 2011 (O&M) 2 because during the pendency of the petition son of the petitioner for whose personal necessity the shop in question is needed, occupied another shop on rent, it cannot be said that the necessity has come to an end. Even otherwise, from the facts on record, the need of the son is clearly established as he is paying a very high rate of rent for the shop allegedly taken on rent by him, whereas, the petitioner is paying rent of the demised shop at the rate of Rs.550/- per month. Not only this, it has also come on record that the said shop has been taken on rent by Paramjit Kaur wife of Sarabjit Singh to do business to to feed the family. In view of the aforesaid facts which stand established on record the findings of the authorities below cannot be interfered with. No merits. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge October 3, 2011 rk