Civil Revision No. 3003 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3003 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.5.2010 M/s Bata India Limited and another ...Petitioner Versus Om Parkash Kohli and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.H.R.Nohria, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant having lost the battle before both the Forums is in revision on an averment that the respondents- landlords are, infact, in possession of a number of other properties which fetch them substantial income. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon the income tax returns purporting to have been filed by respondents Trilok Kohli and Vijay Kohli. It was apparent from the record that the petitioner-tenant did aver, in the course of the pleadings, that the respondents- landlords have other premises as well which they could use for the averred personal bonafide necessity. However, the plea does not appear to have been pursued any further inasmuch as the petitioner- tenant had not been able to adduce any evidence to prove the identity of the commercial properties which were averred to be owned by the respondents-landlords. Insofar as the respondents- landlords are concerned, AW-1-Om Parkash Kohli, one of the respondent-landlords, had entered witness box and testified on oath Civil Revision No. 3003 of 2010 -2- **** that all of them are in the employment of M/s Muni Lal Sohal Lal Merchant, Ludhiana. Leaned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant, adverted to the above quoted evidence and raised a point that evidence to the above effect is not in accord with the pleadings at the trial wherein the respondents-landlords had averred that they are unemployed. The further plea, raised in the context, is that the respondents-landlords cannot claim to have any personal bonafide necessity to get the tenanted premises vacated in view of the fact that they are already working at the shop of their real uncle in their own right. The plea raised completely lacks merit. It is illogical to say on the one hand that respondents-landlords are working at the shop of their real uncle and to further aver, on the other hand, that they are doing so in their own right. Howsoever close a relationship, a person cannot claim continuity of functioning in the shop of a relative as of right. Any embitterment or feud could mean ceasure of functioning activities at the shop of a relation. There is, nothing, unnatural on the part of the respondents-landlords to have asked for the vacation of the tenanted premises wherein they could run a business in their own right. The outer limit within which a Revisional Court can undertake the adjudicatory exercise was provided by the Apex Court in judicial pronouncements reported as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 1999 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 805 and Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Rak Bajaj Civil Revision No. 3003 of 2010 -3- **** (deceased) through LRs. and others (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1. On perusal thereof, it can safely be culled out that “a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact finding court is wholly unreasonable.”) I have examined the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also reasoning noticed in support thereof on the touchstone of the advocated plea and also the riders in the manner of appreciation which have been indicated by the Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja's and Shamshad Ahmad's cases (supra). The present is a pure and simple case in which the respondents-landlords have been able to prove inclination to obtain the possession of the tenanted premises to be able to run a business therein in their own right. They have been able to further prove that they are presently working at the shop of their uncle. Their functioning over there is at the pleasure of their uncle. On the other hand, the petitioner-tenant has not been able to adduce any evidence in support of the averment that the respondents-tenants own any other commercial property. I have not been able to find any illegality or perversity in the course of the impugned order which may call for interference. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner-tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 10, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge