IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.330 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION:21.01.2011 **** Prem Kumar . . . . Petitioner Vs. Anil Kumar . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for the caveator/respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against orders passed by both the Courts below for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent is in occupation of another House No.721, Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat, therefore, the plea of bona fide necessity is false. However, the learned Courts below have found that House No.721, Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat, is owned by the mother of the respondent and there is no evidence on record that respondent owned any other house besides the house in question. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JANUARY 21, 2011 JUDGE Vivek