Civil Revision No. 561 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 561 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Krishan Kumar Gaba and another ...Petitioners Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. L.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. S.D.ANAND, J. Both the Courts ( learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority), in a chord of concurrence, recorded a finding that the petitioner-landlord had not been able to prove that the premises available with them for running a Guest House were short of the requirement and there is any need to expand the business. The following are relevant observations made by the learned Appellate Authority in the context:- “The petitioners have sought eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises on the ground of their personal need to expand the business of Guest House as they wanted to use the same as Conference Hall and office. No report from any Architect, has been got proved on the file that the already existing building of Divya Guest House which is being run by Krishan Kumar is Civil Revision No. 561 of 2009 -2- **** insufficient for their business. There is no end to expand the business and in order to prove their genuine need of the tenanted premises no cogent and conclusive evidence has been brought on the record and mere wish of the landlord cannot be termed as bonafide need.” I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to invite the attention of this Court to any fact on the basis whereof the factual accuracy of the above observations on facts could be challenged. The query draws a blank from the learned counsel. Both the Courts have recorded an acceptable reasoning in support of the view obtained. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade this Court to interfere in the exercise of discretion by those Courts. There can be no dispute that though the Courts would normally agree with the landlord on the point of personal necessity but only if it is proved that premises are required for personal bonafide necessity. The plea for ejectment cannot be allowed if it is proved to be a mere wish of the landlord without thereby any justification therefor. In the light of foregoing discussion, I find that the present is not a case wherein this Court ought to interfere in the concurrent finding (recorded by the learned Appellate Court and learned Rent Controller ) in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. April 19, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge