Civil Revision No. 6545 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6545 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Rajesh Kumar and Others …Petitioners Versus Joginder Singh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Gopal K Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by widow and two sons of Om Parkash, who was inducted as a tenant by respondent No.1/landlord. It is a pleaded case of respondent No.1/landlord that he is a qualified Welder having an ITI Diploma and being unemployed, he intended to start his own business of welding in the demised premises, which was rented out to Om Parkash at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the demised premises is required by respondent No.1/landlord for his bonafide use and occupation. The only argument advanced, to assail the personal necessity, is that the Diploma in Welding from the Industrial Training Institute was acquired by the landlord in the year 1983-84 and the eviction petition was instituted in 2004. Therefore, the landlord, for a Civil Revision No. 6545 of 2010 2 quite long period, was not doing the work of a Welder and at this juncture, the ground of personal necessity is a made up affair. Learned counsel for the tenants has submitted that the landlord is doing the business of running Taxi and is also having an S.T.D. Booth, thus, there is no need for him to start the business of welding. The Appellate Authority has also noticed the fact that in the year 1990, the landlord was running a Sweet Shop along with his brother and thereafter the business of S.T.D. Booth is no longer a lucrative one as now-a-days, the telephone facility is available in every house and hence, running of business of welding, in which the landlord has expertise, makes sense. The landlord is a best Judge of his own requirement. The tenant cannot dictate that the new venture, which he intended to start, will be a non-starter and unsuccessful. Therefore, the landlord should not be permitted to try the proposed business. I find no infirmity in the finding, recorded by both the Courts below. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 13, 2010 “DK”