CR No.1729 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1729 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Satpal and others ...Petitioners Versus Smt. Shashi Bala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harjot Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenants are in revision against the order of eviction passed by the learned Appellate Authority reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller on an application filed by the landlords under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] from the shop forming part of building No.2387, Bathinda Road, Fazilka. The precise argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants is that there are three shops in a row, out of which the tenants are occupying the middle shop, whereas one adjoining shop is in possession of the landlord and other adjoining shop has been got vacated after the filing of the eviction petition. He has submitted that the petitioners/tenants are ready to shift from middle to corner if the landlords want the middle shop for the purpose of expansion of their business. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has submitted that in order to seek eviction from the other shop, which was in possession of Manoj Kumar, they had to contest up to the High Court. He has CR No.1729 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** referred to the decision of this Court in CR No.1055 of 2006 dated 24.01.2008 in which the revision filed by the tenant was dismissed by this Court wherein he had raised contention that the landlord had already got some space adjacent to his shop, but this Court had held that the landlord can always expand his business and the need to expand the business and how and where a landlord is to carry out such a business is in the discretion of the landlord and in this regard the tenant cannot make a choice for him. He further submitted that the respondents/landlords require all the three shops in order to run their wholesale business of clothes and dupattas and for that matter they cannot barter their shops with the tenants. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case especially the order passed by this Court in CR No.1055 of 2006 and the requirement of the landlords, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants that the landlords may exchange their shop which they have got vacated after a long drawn litigation. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be not order as to costs. May 17, 2011. ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge