Civil Revision No. 4567 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4567 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.7.2010 Ramesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus Saroj Rani …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The respondent/landlady has instituted an eviction petition for evicting the petitioner/tenant on the two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner was in arrears of rent and house tax w.e.f. 27.10.2003 till the filing of ejectment petition at the rate of Rs.660/- per month along with interest and costs. Secondly, the demised shop was required by her for settling her son Hari Pal Chand, who is middle pass and of a marriageable age. It was further stated that from the demised shop, her son will earn his livelihood. It was specifically stated in the eviction petition that about five years ago, another shop was sold by the respondent/landlady. On the first day, after the provisional rent was assessed, the petitioner tendered an amount of Rs.5,799/- and therefore, the ground for non payment of rent became redundant. Both the Courts below upheld the contention of the landlady Civil Revision No. 4567 of 2010 2 that the demised shop is required for starting the business for his son Hari Pal Chand, who was 19 years of age and unmarried. The grounds which were raised before both the Courts below have also been asserted before this Court. Firstly, it was submitted that in the eviction petition, the landlady has not specifically stated that the shop, which was sold about five years ago, was adjacent to the demised shop. Secondly, the son of the landlady namely Hari Pal Chand is helping his father in a grocery shop in the village. Both these grounds have been negated by both the Courts below by saying that the shop was sold five years ago for fulfillment of domestic needs and at that time, son of the landlady was aged about 14 years. In answer to the second plea, both the Courts below have held that since Hari Pal Chand is now aged about 19-20 years and of marriageable age, the family needs have grown and he has to migrate from the village to set up his own business, for satisfying the expanding needs of the family especially when he is to be married. To reject both the grounds, the reasoning adopted by both the Courts below is reasonable, just and appropriate. The view taken by both the Courts below is not perverse. Therefore, this Court will hesitate to substitute the same by its own opinion even though learned counsel for the petitioner has put all his persuasive skills. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 26, 2010 “DK”