IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2020 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 26, 2010 Kasturi Lal and others. …Petitioners Versus Ravinder Singh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. S.D. Anand, J. The learned Rent Controller negatived the ejectment action initiated by the respondent – landlord by recording that the latter had not been able to prove that the petitioners – tenants are in arrears of rent and that he requires the tenanted premises for personal bona fide necessity. In appeal, however, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the former part of the above noticed finding but reversed the latter part thereof by holding that the respondent – landlord had been able to prove that he requires the tenanted premises for use and occupation by his son who wants to run a business therein. There also was a finding, in the context, that C.R. No. 2020 of 2010 the aforesaid son of respondent-landlord is presently doing business by going here and there. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues t hat the need projected by the landlord is mala fide inasmuch as the landlord – respondent has been filing repeated pleas for ejectment of the petitioners – tenants and that, by itself, would indicate want of bona fides on his part. It is argued, in the context, that the landlord – respondent had filed an ejectment plea in the year 1991 and had filed another ejectment plea in the year 1994. The learned counsel is not in a position to controvert that the ejctment action initiated by the respondent – landlord against the petitioners – tenants in the year 1991 was based on an averment that the petitioners – tenants were in arrears of rent and that they had ceased to occupy the premises aforementioned. He is also not in a position to deny that the ejectment action initiated in the year 1994 was on an averment that the petitioners – tenants were in arrears of rent and that they had caused acts which had materially impaired the value and utility of the building. Besides the two pleas aforementioned, there was also a plea that the petitioners – tenants had done acts which amounted to nuisance. It is, thus, apparent that no plea for personal bona fide necessity had been raised in the ejectment petitions which came to be filed in the year 1991 and 1994. Even otherwise, 2 C.R. No. 2020 of 2010 the respondent - landlord purchased the tenanted premises in the year 1996. In that view of things, the action initiated by his predecessor-in-interest cannot be said to be binding upon him. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners – tenants, has not been able to make out a case for interference. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. However, the petitioners – tenants are given two months time to vacate the tenanted premises from today. In case of a default, they would render themselves liable to punishment on a charge of having violated the orders of the Court and that they shall render themselves to eviction forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. March 26, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3