Civil Revision No. 5281 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5281 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.4.2010 Pritpal Singh ...Petitioners Versus Ranjit Singh etc. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.N.Raina, Advocate for the respondents S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority upholding the plea raised by the respondent- landlord for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on a finding that the premises are required for use by Daljit Singh, a son of respondent-landlord who is an Advocate by profession and who requires the same for utilisation thereof as law office. In Civil Revision No. 4412 of 2009 ( Krishan Chand and others Vs. Ranjit Singh), vide order granted today i.e. 27.4.2010 the finding of fact in the relevant behalf has been upheld in respect of certain premises adjacent to the premises in issue in the case before this Court. It was argued by learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Civil Revision No. 5281 of 2009 -2- **** the petitioner, that the tenanted premises are not actually required by Daljit Singh because he is a non-practicing Advocate and he is earning his living by running a chemist shop. The plea raised is completely denuded of merit. Ex. A/11 is the enrollment certificate which indicates that Daljit Singh aforementioned has been enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. Ex. A/12 is the identity card issued by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. The fact that Daljit Singh is an Advocate was conceded in the cross-examination by none else or other than the petitioner-tenant himself. Though it is in evidence that the family of the respondent-landlord is into the medicines business and they are running three firms under the name and style of M/s DD Chemists, M/s AD Chemists and M/s CD Chemists. The income tax returns of those firms were produced as Ex. A/5 to Ex. A/8. A perusal thereof would indicate that the wife of Daljit Singh aforementioned is proprietor of one of the firm. Though there also is evidence that she has since joined service, it would not justify an inference that medicines business had been taken over by the respondent-landlord. The fact that the tenanted premises are adjacent to premises in issue in Civil Revision No. 4412 of 2009 ( Krishan Chand and others Vs. Ranjit Singh) is supportive of the plea raised by the respondent-landlord that these two premises would be required to house the office of Daljit Singh, son of the respondent. Even otherwise, I would be reluctant to interfere with the Civil Revision No. 5281 of 2009 -3- **** finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority (on point of personal bonafide necessity) in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.S.Zehad Vs. K. Raghvan 1998 (2) RCR 628. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. April 27 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge