Civil Revision No. 5068 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5068 of 2007 Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Charanjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Urmila Devi ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. H.S.Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against a concurrent finding directing his ejectment from the tenanted premises, on an averment of personal bona fide necessity. It is apparent, from the material obtaining on the file, that there is no dispute either about relationship between the parties or the rate of rent. The only controversy is about validity or otherwise finding on the point of personal bonafide necessity. Before undertaking the adjudicatory exercise, it must be noticed that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has in- built limitations in the matter of appreciation of evidence. The relevant pronouncements in the context are Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 1999 (1) Punjab Law Reporter Civil Revision No. 5068 of 2007 -2- **** 805 and Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Rak Bajaj (deceased) through LRs. and others (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1. It was argued by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the allowance of the ejectment petition was inappropriate inasmuch as the son for whose need ejectment had been initiated had not been produced at the trial. The plea raised thereby was that the aforesaid son of the respondent was the best circumstanced to make a statement about the need for the tenanted premises for running of business. The plea raised is denuded of merit, being factually inaccurate. The projected need was not only testified on oath by the respondent-landlord but also by Vipin Kumar for whose user the eviction action had been initiated. Both of them reiterated the factum of the latter being unemployed and further that he is a commerce graduate. Their credit could not be shaken or impeached in the course of cross-examination. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, learned counsel argued that there is another shop adjacent to the tenanted premises which can be used by Vipin Kumar for the purpose aforementioned. The plea raised is oblivious of the fact that there is material on record to prove that other shop is being used as a garage. In the modern days of luxurious living almost every one has Civil Revision No. 5068 of 2007 -3- **** a four wheeler in the family. There is, thus, nothing unnatural if the adjacent shop is being used by respondent-landlord as a garage. Even otherwise, the law cannot give it to the tenant to decide which premises the landlord would like to use for running of the projected business. Even if more than one premises are available to the landlord, it has to be left to the discretion of the landlord to decide where his projected business could be appropriately run. No other point was argued. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 28, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 5068 of 2007 -4- ****