Civil Revision No. 2718 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 2718 of 2010 Date of Decision: 1.7.2010 Vishaw Bandhu …Petitioner Versus Vinod Mehra and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The respondent/landlord has filed a petition to evict the petitioner/tenant on the ground that he has migrated from Kolkata to Amritsar and intended to start his own cloth business in the demised shop. Both the Courts below, taking the evidence into consideration, gave a concurrent finding that personal necessity of the landlord is made out and ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the site plan (Annexure P1) and stated that along with the shop which is in red colour, there is a portion from which stairs and a door has been provided for going upstairs. It is submitted that area can be used by the landlord to start his business. It is further contended that the landlord, in his cross- Civil Revision No. 2718 of 2010 2 examination (Annexure P4), has admitted that he has got his own house and he is residing there with his wife. It is stated that if landlord is so anxious, he can start his business in the building occupied by him for his residence. It has been further urged that the necessity of landlord is not bonafide and the ejectment petition has been filed only to evict the petitioner/tenant as the landlord is aged about 65 years. I am not impressed by all the three grounds raised before me. It is well settled that it is for landlord to decide and choose the premises from which he intends to start his business. Apparently, the submission that the area adjoining the shop, from where the stairs and door has been provided for going to first floor, should be used by the landlord, cannot be acceptable to the landlord as the same will be a disadvantageous situation as compared to the shop which is in occupation of the tenant. Secondly, to say that the landlord should start his business from the residence is also not a sound ground to deny eviction of the tenant from the shop owned by the landlord in the commercial area. Lastly, the submission that 65 years old man should not start his business is also not a valid ground. Hence, no case is made out to disturb the well reasoned findings of the two Courts below, which are based on appreciation of the evidence and are neither perverse nor perfunctory. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 1, 2010 “DK”