IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8297 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.02.2011 Rishi Pal . . .Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Sharma, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises (shop) on the ground of personal necessity. The respondent/landlord has proved on record the personal necessity by leading cogent evidence and the learned Appellate Authority has also recorded that the petitioner/tenant also owns and possess Shop No.4 adjoining to the demised premises. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently to persuade this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below but in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) FEBRUARY 04, 2011 JUDGE Vivek