Civil Revision No. 6938 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6938 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.4.2010 Ram Kumar Bambi and others ...Petitioner Versus Rajinder Kumar & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioners-tenants have filed the revision petition to obtain the invalidation of the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also learned Appellate Authority upholding the plea raised by the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the former i.e. petitioners- tenants from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal bonafide necessity. Learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners at the time of motion hearing, very fairly stated that he does not contest the judgment on merits and would restrict the plea to the grant of little more while to enable the petitioner to look for alternative accommodation. In that context, the plea raised was that the tenanted premises is the only source of livelihood for him. The petitioners are presently represented by a newly engaged counsel who had superseded the earlier counsel. He states that he does Civil Revision No. 6938 of 2009 -2- **** not stand by what was indicated to the Bench at the time of motion hearing. The petitioners cannot wriggle out of whatever had been represented to this Court at the time of motion hearing by the learned counsel representing them. The verbal averment made by the newly engaged counsel (that the petitioners did not instruct the initially engaged learned counsel to say so is neither here nor there). Even if we go to the merits of the case, it is apparent that both the Courts have recorded a well reasoned finding upholding the averment by the respondent-landlord that the tenanted premises are required for personal bonafide necessity. The petitioners tried to raise a contention before the learned Appellate Authority that the eviction action is malafide by averring that the respondent-landlord owned another property. However, it did not find favour with the learned Appellate Authority because it came to be established on record that the other property was under occupation of a tenant. I have not been persuaded to fault the impugned finding on any valid score. 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 six months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. Disposed of accordingly. April 27, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge