CIVIL REVISION NO. 73 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO. 73 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 20.01.2009 Reeta ...Petitioner versus Mahadevi and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present : Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. K. KANNAN, J. In the eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal requirement, the respondent/tenant contended that he had taken the property on rent only from a person by name Lal Chand and there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant. He had tendered the rent after filing of the petition and as regards the contention of personal requirements of the landlord, the contention of the tenant was that there were two other rooms of the house in which there were two other tenants and there was no need to vacate only the respondent- tenant. The Rent Controller, as well as, the Appellate Court found that the previous owner Lal Chand had transferred the property to the present landlord and as a successor, he had a right to seek for eviction of his tenant by direct attornment in his CIVIL REVISION NO. 73 OF 2009 -2- favour. Both the Courts below also found that the landlord had a large family of four sons. One son had died and his widow and four children were living with the landlord. The requirement was accordingly found to be bona fide. The tenant's contention in revision petition is that the landlord had constructed the house at Faridkot and two of his sons were residing in that house. That occupation was more than sufficient for their residence. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Court have considered the issue from the perspective that the requirement of the landlord for his occupation along with his daughter-in-law and four children was indeed bona fide and that the existing area was not sufficient. It has been considered by the Courts below that actions have been taken even against the two other tenants also who have been in occupation of the portions of the house. The tenant can not be heard to contend that the landlord can go to some other town and live there or there is no requirement for a larger occupation than what is available. No error of law or mistake in appreciation of evidence could be seen and the orders impugned, do not suffer from any vice to subject them to any modification in revision. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. JANUARY 20, 2009 (K. KANNAN) shalini JUDGE CIVIL REVISION NO. 73 OF 2009 -3-