C.R. No.6171 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6171 of 2007 Date of Decision:22.09.2009 Suresh .....Petitioner Versus Ramesh and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The point that survives for consideration is the alleged requirement of the landlord for his own occupation for a business that he was planning to start at the demised premises. The lower Appellate Court held that the landlord's bona fides had been sufficiently established by evidence. A cloud was sought to be raised by contending that the landlord had admitted in his evidence that he had other properties in Bhiwani where the property was situate. The particular evidence that came through landlord's admission was that a property adjoining the suit premises had been in possession of yet another tenant by name Ved Parkash and he had sold the property during the pendency of proceedings to the tenant himself. This, according to the learned counsel appearing for the tenant, would show that there are no bona fides for, the landlord had not opted to take C.R. No.6171 of 2007 -2- back possession from the tenant but he had sold the property. In fact, this issue has also been discussed by the lower Appellate Court when it had observed that what was relevant, was the actual possession of yet another property in the hands of the landlord himself and the mere ownership of other property was irrelevant. It has also observed that if yet another property has been sold to another tenant, who was already in possession, that does not give room for doubting the bona fides of the landlord. I find the reasoning of the Court below to be appropriate and it suffers from no vice for interference in revision. 2. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 22, 2009 Pankaj*