IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3980 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.6.2010 Kiran Batra ....Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a tenant's revision petition directed against the orders dated 6.10.2009 and 1.6.2010 passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, respectively, by virtue of which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. The respondents/landlords filed a petition for eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of personal necessity. Both the Courts below accepted the plea while ordering the eviction of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are erroneous and that personal necessity as pleaded by the respondents does not exist. He C.R.No.3980 of 2010 (O&M) -2- has referred to the record to say that the respondents who are 3 co- owners of 5 shops in the area have got one shop which is still lying vacant while another shop was got vacated some time back by filing a petition under Section 13 of the Act. He thus contends that since the evicted shop is available to them, it is not necessary to evict the petitioner as the need of the respondents can be fulfilled by occupying the said shop. He has also referred to the material on record to say that respondent Lalit Kumar for whose need the shop is being got vacated is unemployed since 1995 when his business which he had set up allegedly failed to take off. In the year 2003 the eviction petition was filed when the said need was available to them but the petition was filed on the grounds other than of personal necessity. He thus contends that from these facts it can be inferred that the petition introducing personal necessity as a cause of action is mala fide. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned orders. The respondents have categorically pleaded that they need the shop for setting up the business of spare parts. It is also the conceded case of the petitioner and the respondents that respondent Lalit Kumar is not doing any business at the moment and is desirous of setting up the business of spare parts which business he was earlier pursuing in Delhi. The Courts have accepted the plea of the respondents/landlords. It is the settled principle of law that if the element of need as expressed by the landlord is evident from some material on record, then the tenant cannot question such a need to say that it can be satisfied by some other means and that it is not C.R.No.3980 of 2010 (O&M) -3- necessary to get the premises which are in his possession vacated to satisfy such need. The landlord is always a best judge of his desires and needs and the terms of such a need cannot be dictated to him by the tenant. It is not also in doubt that respondent Lalit Kumar was not having any business to his credit when the petition was filed. It is thus his wish if he wants to get the shop vacated to pursue his business which he is desirous to do. The Supreme Court in Atma S.Brar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 42 held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is willing to hand over the physical and vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondents and is also willing to furnish an undertaking to this effect provided some time is granted to him to vacate the premises which time he has expressed to be one year. Having regard to the aforesaid when the learned counsel for the petitioner who has instructions from his client and has specifically made a statement to the aforesaid effect, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision petition by observing as follows :- i) That the petitioner shall furnish an affidavit before the Rent Controller at Bhiwani within a period of three weeks from today undertaking to vacate the premises in question and hand over the physical possession of the shop in question to the respondents within C.R.No.3980 of 2010 (O&M) -4- one year from today. ii) That the petitioner shall restore the possession of the premises in question to the respondents without damage to the property and he shall not make any alteration or addition to the property and also continue to pay the rent at the agreed rate by the 7th of each month and shall also pay all the arrears, if any, on account of rent or any other terms of the tenancy while furnishing the undertaking, i.e. within three weeks. iii) That the petitioner shall also record in the undertaking that he would be bound by the terms of such an undertaking and shall not make any attempt to wriggle out of the same. 29.6.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss