Civil Revision No. 1788 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1788 of 2010 Date of decision : 17.3.2010 R.S.Tuteja ....Petitioner Versus Mrs. Rita Shukla and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. Both the Courts (the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority) upheld the plea raised by the respondent- landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity. It is apparent, from a conjunctive perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned Rent Controller and also by the learned Appellate Authority, that the landlord adduced evidence to prove that he requires the premises for personal necessity and that he is residing in a rent accommodation at Noida. His credit could not be shaken or impeached in the course of cross-examination. The learned Courts further noticed that the petitioner-tenant did not utter even a word in the context of personal necessity plea raised by the respondent-landlord. It was noticed by the learned Appellate Authority that all that the petitioner-tenant had averred, in the course of the statement was that he had been paying rent and that he is ready to pay up whatever is due as rent. It was in that view of things that the learned Appellant Authority proceeded to affirm the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller upholding the plea of personal Civil Revision No. 1788 of 2010 -2- necessity raised by the respondent-landlord. In that very context, it was noticed that the only suggestion given on behalf of the petitioner-tenant in the course of latter's cross-examination was that the rented accommodation available with the landlord at Noida was sufficient. That suggestion, though denied as incorrect is neither here nor there. If the landlord is putting up in a rented accommodation, there is no reason why the law would compel him to stay over there only. There is also nothing in law to disable the landlord insisting from his shifting over to an accommodation owned by him. We would give it to the landlord to decide whether he wants to occupy the accommodation owned by him to preferred to the rent accommodation. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for the grant of little more while to enable the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises on an averment that he would require sometime to arrange alternative accommodation in order to be able to keep on earning bread and butter for his family. He has no other ground to urge in favour of request. In appreciation of the fair presentation made by the learned counsel, it is ordered that the petitioner-tenant shall have six months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 17, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE