CR No.1414 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1414 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.05.2011. Rajiv Bansal and another ...Petitioners Versus Dr. Daya Parkash Bansal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenants are in revision against orders of the Courts below by which they have been asked to vacate the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. In short, the landlord had let out the demised premises to the tenant vide agreement dated 29.06.1984 @ `1,550/- per month besides house tax. He filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] on the ground that he has retired from government service on 31.10.1992 as Director, Health Services, Haryana and wants to start his own medical practice in the demised premises. His prayer for bona fide requirement was opposed by the tenant on the ground that he is already practicing with his son and daughter-in-law in their clinic under the name and style of Jagdamba Hospital, located at old G.T. Road, Karnal. Besides this, it was alleged that behind the said hospital there is a sufficient place for construction of a clinic. Both the Courts below found the requirement of the landlord to be genuine and ordered eviction of the tenants. In the present revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the landlord is already practicing with his son and CR No.1414 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** daughter-in-law, therefore, the requirement is not bona fide. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record from which I have found that the landlord had made it clear in his cross- examination that he wishes to work till he is alive and the shop in which his son is running “Jagdamba Hospital” does not belong to him as is evident from Ex.P6 which is a copy of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.170/99 according to which the landlord had relinquished the said shop in favour of his son who is a Surgeon, whereas the landlord is a Physician and wishes to practice independently in his own premises. In view of the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in respect of the bona fide necessity of the landlord, I do not find any error in the impugned orders and as such, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. May 23, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE