CR No.1143 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1143 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:02.06.2011. Daljit Kaur and others ...Petitioners Versus Satwant Kaur Sodhi ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenants are in revision against orders of the Courts below by which they have been asked to vacate the demised premises on account of bona fide necessity of the landlord. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] seeking eviction of the tenants, inter alia, on the grounds of arrears of rent and personal necessity of the landlord. Insofar as the issue with regard to arrears of rent is concerned, that has become redundant as the tenant had tendered the rent, but the eviction order was passed by the Courts below on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that requirement of the landlord of the demised premises is actuated on greed and not on need because his son and daughter are well settled. However, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the need of the landlord has been found to be CR No.1143 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - ***** bona fide by the Courts below wherein it has been held that the demised premises is being used for commercial purposes and is required by the landlord for the same purpose and the requirement of creating additional space is only secondary. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the need set up by the landlord is bona fide and there is nothing on record which could compel this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below for interfering in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. June 02, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE