IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3067 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:09.05.2011. Pawan Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus Smt. Surinder Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenants are in revision against orders of the Courts below passed on an application filed by the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] by which tenants have been asked to vacate the demised premises (shop) on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the demised premises is a part of residential building, therefore, it cannot be got vacated for commercial purposes. Admittedly, the tenants are using the demised premises for commercial purpose which is sought to be got vacated by the landlord for the same purpose. It has been held by this Court in Sh. Satpal Chadha and others V. Satish Kumar and others, 2011(2) PLR 544 that the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant for commercial purposes if he is himself using the demised premises for commercial purposes even if it is a part of the residential building, but he cannot seek eviction of the tenant from the commercial building for using it as a residence. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. May 09, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE