C. Revision Petition No. 5386 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C. Revision Petition No. 5386 of 2009 Date of decision : April 30, 2010 Arru Ram ....Petitioner versus Urmila Devi and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Jagmohan Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate and Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition by tenant filed under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (in short, the Act). Landlord Siri Gopal since deceased and represented by his legal representative (Urmila Devi respondent no. 1) filed ejectment petition under section 13 of the Act on various grounds. Respondent no. 2 Ram Lal who is brother of the tenant was alleged to be sub-tenant. However, learned Rent Controller, Malerkotla vide order dated 18.10.2004 dismissed the ejectment petition. Appeal preferred by landlord Siri Gopal has been allowed by learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur vide judgment dated C. Revision Petition No. 5386 of 2009 -2- 16.7.2009 and eviction of the tenant from the demised shop has been ordered on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord pleaded that the shop was required for his two sons. It is submitted that the landlord and his one son have since died. However, necessity for the second son still survives. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that there is contradictory evidence of the landlord regarding some other shop which was under tenancy of the landlord. However, the landlord cannot be forced to continue to occupy some other property as tenant if the landlord wishes to occupy his own property. A landlord occupying property as tenant is entitled to get his own property vacated from the tenant on account of personal necessity. Learned Appellate Authority has analysed and discussed the evidence and come to finding that the demised shop is required by the landlord. The said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Law of eviction on account of bonafide requirement of the landlord has now been well settled. Statement of the landlord regarding his personal necessity has to be given due weight. In the instant case there is nothing on record to discard the claim of the landlord regarding bonafide requirement of the demised shop for the business of his son. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, as prayed for, the petitioner tenant is granted six months to vacate the disputed shop subject to the C. Revision Petition No. 5386 of 2009 -3- condition that the petitioner shall furnish within three weeks from today undertaking by way of affidavit before the Rent Controller that on or before expiry of six months from today, the petitioner shall hand over peaceful vacant possession of the demised shop to landlord respondent no. 1 and the tenant shall also within three weeks from today pay all the arrears of rent/mesne profits and shall continue to pay the same on or before the 7th of every English calendar failing which the ejectment order shall become executable at once. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 30, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'