Civil Revision No. 4356 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4356 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.10.2011 *** Chunni Lal .. Petitioner VS. Laxmi Devi .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This civil revision has been preferred by the tenant against the order of his ejectment from the shop in question, by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have directed him to deliver the vacant possession of the shop to the respondent-landlord within two months. Heard. There is no dispute with regard to existence of tenant-landlord relationship between the parties. The ejectment of the tenant has been ordered on the ground of personal necessity of the shop in question to settle the son of respondent-landlord. In order to prove that her bonafide necessity, the landlord herself stepped into the witness box, besides she examined her husband and the son, for whose necessity the shop was required. On the other hand, the petitioner-tenant did not appear before the Court to counter the aforesaid averment of personal necessity. The witnesses so examined by the tenant deposed that the shop in question was not run by the petitioner-tenant, but by somebody else. Even it has come in the statement of RW1 Jagdish that he did not meet Chunni Lal for the last Civil Revision No. 4356 of 2011 2 about 8/9 months, who after selling his house started residing at Hansi. Though the tenant has claimed that the son of the respondent is still studying, but his own witness RW1 Jagdish admitted that the son of the landlord is doing the work of selling mustard oil along with his father. It has also come on record that commercial activities are being carried out in the shop in dispute and hence, it cannot be said that the same being part of residential house cannot be get vacated for non-residential purposes. It is also equally settled that the landlord is the best judge of his/ her requirement and a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to in which shop he has to run his business, rather it is the sweet will of the landlord to make a choice between the nature of the business to be carried out and where. The findings arrived at by the Courts below are neither illegal nor perverse and it cannot be said that the same are based on no evidence. The instant petition, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) October 14,2011 JUDGE Jiten