Civil Revision No. 1426 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1426 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.4.2010 M/s Jagan Nath Chaman Lal ...Petitioner Versus Om Parkash Mehta and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Manish Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. Both the Courts (the learned Rent Controller as also the learned Appellate Authority) recorded a finding in favour of the respondent- landlord to the effect that he requires the tenanted premises for personal bonafide necessity. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against it. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the premises presently available with the respondent are sufficient and the plea raised for the vacation of the tenanted premises is a mere wish which ought not to have been granted by the two Courts. The plea raised is oblivious of the testimony of the material available on the file. It is in the testimony of none else or other than the petitioner RW-2 Suresh Kumar that width of stair case of the premises, where from respondent-landlord is present running business, is only 3 ft. There is also evidence, in the testimony of the witnesses examined by the respondent-landlord that Om Parkash petitioner had suffered a heart attack and that the other respondent-landlord Satish Kumar Mehta is also Civil Revision No. 1426 of 2010 -2- **** suffering from a major heart problem and further that both are undergoing treatment for the illness aforementioned. It is also in evidence that the respondent-landlords, who are running business of herbs, have no place for storage of their gunny bags which they are keeping in the verandah. The discussion recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also by the learned Appellate Authority is appropriate in character and is clinching and supportive of the finding that the accommodation presently available with the respondent-landlords is not sufficient and they require the tenanted premises for smooth functioning of their business of herbs which they are presently running. There is plethora of law to the effect that the need projected by the landlord is to be examined from his point of view and, in the absence of any malafide we must give it to the landlord to decide how much area would he require for the smooth running of his business. In this case, the respondent-landlords are not only suffering from heart-related problems they have also proved to have a very small stair case and there is also proof of the fact that they need tenanted premises for storage of articles. The petition shall stand negatived accordingly. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller as also by the learned Appellate Authority shall stand affirmed. The petitioner-tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. April 20, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge