Civil Revision No. 2906 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2906 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.3.2010 Suraj Mishra ....Petitioner Versus Gurdeep Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Khetarpal, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. In a finding of concurrence, learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding upholding the claim of the respondent-landlord to evict the petitioner-tenant on a plea of personal necessity. The plea, averred in the context and upheld by both the Courts is that the tenanted premises are required by the respondent- landlord for use by his ITI trained son who wants to start business therein. In order to assail the finding, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is nothing bonafide on the part of the respondent-landlord in raising the plea for ejectment in view of the fact that there is a shop adjacent to the tenanted premises which is owned by the respondent-landlord only and which is lying unoccupied. Civil Revision No. 2906 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel has not been able to invite my attention to any substantive evidence on the basis whereof it could be held that the shop aforementioned is lying unoccupied. Infact, it is in the deposition on oath of PW-2 Parminder Singh i.e. son of the landlord, that the other shop is in the occupation of respondent- landlord himself who is running his business therein. In that view of things, it is a pure and simple case wherein it stands proved that respondent-landlord owns two shops, one out of which is in his personal occupation wherein he is running business and other is under the occupation of the petitioner-tenant and it is vacation of that shop which has been applied for by the respondent-landlord in order to enable his son to run a business therein. It is in evidence that Parminder Singh is ITI trained and he wants to run Turner shop in the premises. It is, then, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the projected need of the respondent-landlord cannot be said to be bonafide because it is in evidence that the tenanted premises are situated in a residential area wherein the running of a business may not be permissible. As already noticed in an earlier part of this judgment, the plea raised by the respondent-landlord was that he required the tenanted premises to enable his ITI trained son to run business therein. Whether that shop can be used for running Turner business in a residential area or not is a matter between the respondent- landlord and the competent authority. All that concerns the petitioner-tenant is that if the tenanted premises are got vacated on Civil Revision No. 2906 of 2009 -3- the averred plea and are not utilised for the purpose aforementioned, he shall become entitle to the restoration thereof in terms of relevant Rent Legislation. Even otherwise, there is no material on the file to prove that the running of a Turner business in the tenanted premises would be violative of discipline meant for a residential area. Be that as it may, the respondent-landlord cannot be non suited just on the basis that tenanted premises are situated in a residential area where the running of averred business may not be allowed. 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 tenanted premises aforementioned. March 23, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE