Civil Revison No.751 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.751 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:04.02.2010. Mangat Ram Chawla ...Petitioner Versus Gulshan Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. B.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The respondent – landlord (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent herein') raised a plea for ejectment of the petitioner – tenant (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioner herein') from the tenanted premises on a plea of personal necessity. The plea was upheld by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority. The precise plea raised by the respondent herein, and upheld in the context of the bona fide need for personal use and occupation, is that the respondent herein required the premises for running his own cloth business. The averment made by the petitioner herein to the effect that the need raised was not bona fide inasmuch as the respondent – landlord is already engaged in running business at a shop owned by his brother was negatived by both the Courts for want of proof to that effect. Even if it is assumed, for the shake of arguments, that the landlord is running business as an associate of his brother, it cannot be said that he is doing so in his own right. He can run a business in his own right only when he Civil Revison No.751 of 2010 -2- is lodged in the premises owned by him. If a landlord has an option to continue running a business as an associate of his brother or running it independently in the premises owned by him, the option has necessarily to be left to the landlord himself and if he opts for the latter course, the tenant cannot be heard to validly resist it, particularly when it is in the evidence that the landlord had earlier been selling cloth as a hawker. There is no reason why the Courts should not enable him to run his business in the premises owned by him. In the light of forgoing discussion, I find no reasons to interfere with the exercise of discretion of both the Courts in recording a finding upholding the plea of personal bona fide need raised by the respondent – landlord. The petition shall stand dismissed. The petitioner – tenant is afforded two months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. February 04, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE