Civil Revision No. 6582 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6582 of 2007 Date of decision : 25.1.2010 Joginder Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus Mohinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners-tenant applied for the invalidation of the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority to the effect that respondent-landlord has been able to prove that he requires the tenanted premises for the personal bonafide use of self and his son. Both the Courts noticed the material available on the record and held that the landlord had been able to prove that though his son is running business at Jammu, the landlord wants him to shift and to run the business in the tenanted premises with his assistance. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, in a touch of fairness, concedes that it is not a case where the tenanted premises had been indicated to be required for use only by the indicated son of the landlord. It is conceded that there is indeed a Civil Revision No. 6582 of 2007 -2- **** reference in the course of the petition and also the substantive evidence adduced at the trial that the respondent-landlord would like to assist his son in running his business in the tenanted premises. It is otherwise argued that the son of the petitioner cannot be said to be in bonafide need of the premises as he is already having a running a business at Jammu. It is in evidence that the indicated son of the respondent- landlord had obtained a Diploma in Refrigeration and Air-conditioning from a Govt. Polytechnic, Jammu and a certification in that behalf had been issued. In that context, there was an averment that though the indicated son of the respondent-landlord is doing business in Jammu, the respondent-landlord wants shift him to Jalandhar on account of the disturbed law and order condition in the State of Jammu and that the landlord further wants to indicated son assisted by him in running the business in the tenanted premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to argue that there is any factual inaccuracy in the observations made by the learned Rent Controller and also learned Appellate Authority in recording that finding of fact. In view, thus, of the fact that the landlord did indicate in the course of the petition and also substantive evidence at the trial that he wants his indicated son to shift to Jalandhar and he will assist him in running the business in the tenanted premises and also in view of the fact that respondent-landlord desires his son to shift to Jalandhar on account of disturbing law and order condition in the Civil Revision No. 6582 of 2007 -3- **** State of Jammu and Kashmir, it is apparent that the impugned finding cannot be faulted on any valid score. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel states that petitioner-tenant may be afforded reasonable time to make alternative arrangement for shifting his business because that is his only means of sustenance for self and his family. The petition shall stand dismissed. However, in view of the difficulty explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner-tenant is granted six months time from today to vacate the tenanted premises. Disposed of accordingly. January 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE