IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 651 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 1, 2010 Parmod Singh. …Petitioner Versus Joginder Singh. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. The tenant (petitioner herein) is in revision against a concurrent finding of fact that the respondent – landlord required the tenanted premises for his own personal bona fide use. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the respondent herein had raised a plea that he requires the tenanted premises for use by his four sons, two out of whom had been conceded by him to be overseas and the other two fruitfully engaged in business elsewhere. It is also argued that, in the petition, the precise plea raised by the respondent – landlord was that he requires the premises for use by his son Kashmir Singh who is proved on record to be C.R. No. 651 of 2010 overseas. In support of that contention, learned counsel invites the attention of this Court towards the statement on oath of the respondent – landlord wherein he conceded that his son Kashmir Singh is overseas. The plea raised is denuded of merit. Though there can be no dispute with the fact that the landlord had raised a plea for personal necessity in the context of his son Kashmir Singh whom he conceded at the trial to be overseas, the plea raised before this Court is oblivious of the fact that the respondent landlord had also raised an averment in the course of the petition, and also at the trial, that he requires the tenanted premises for his own use as well. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the respondent – landlord is already engaged in business in village Ibrahimpur and he cannot be expected simultaneously to run business in the disputed premises which are located at Sub Divisional Headquarters Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. There is plethora of law on the point that it is for the landlord to decide which premises (out of his total holding) would he like to use for his personal need. In this case, there is nothing unnatural if the respondent – landlord wants to shift from a village to greener pastures of a Sub Divisional 2 C.R. No. 651 of 2010 Headquarters where the business would be expected to draw quantitatively and qualitatively better clientele. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon 2008(1) RCR, 536 – Smt. Banarsi Devi Jain vs. M.P. Transport Company and another and 1998(2) RCR 258 – Melaram Jairam Punjabi vs. Shah Babulal Chhotelal Mehta is inappropriate for want of commonness of facts. The petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. January 01, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3