Civil Revision No. 156 of 2005 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 156 of 2005 Date of decision: 11.5.2010 Darshan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Kesar Lal ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. Learned Rent Controller negatived the ejectment action initiated by the respondent-landlord. However, the finding was reversed in appeal and the learned Appellate Authority allowed the petition filed by the respondent-landlord and directed the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on a finding that the premises are required for personal bonafide necessity. The plea, raised in the context, was that the respondent-landlord requires the tenanted premises because his son was to start a business over there. Learned Rent Controller negatived the plea of the landlord by observing that the landady had concededly been in possession of another commercial premises (shop No.126) but he never made any effort to settle his son on the first floor of that shop Civil Revision No. 156 of 2005 -2- **** (shop No.126). Learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding, gave credence to the statement made by the landlord with regard to personal bonafide necessity and allowed the ejectment petition. It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the petition deserves outright disallowance as the respondent-landlord was guilty of concealing the fact that he was in possession of yet another commercial premises. The plea would appear be to be feeble and worthy of negation. A perusal of para 4 of the petition, and also deposition on oath of respondent-landlord, would make it clear that the respondent- landlord had categorically averred in the petition itself that he is running a shop in the area of Manimajra. It cannot, thus, cannot be said that the respondent-landlord is guilty of any concealment. It was, then, argued that respondent-landlord had not given the statutory declaration (in the pleadings at the trial) with regard to his being in possession of the Manimajra commercial premises aforementioned. The plea raised is outrightly bereft of merits in view of the fact that the factum of respondent-landlord being in possession of a shop at Manimajra was indicated in the petition itself. If we peruse para 4 of the petition, we would find that there is a precise averment that respondent-landlord “is running a cloth shop in Manimajra.” The relevant para of the petition itself makes it clear that respondent- landlord had made categorical averment in the course thereof that he is running a cloth shop at Manimajra. In that view of things, it Civil Revision No. 156 of 2005 -3- **** cannot be said that there was any want of statutory declaration. The mere fact of non-mentioning of the shop number would not invalidate the petition. If any law in support of this view of mine is required, reference with advantage may be made to Baba Kashinath Bhinge Vs. Samast Lingavat Gavali 1995(1) RCR 519 and M/s British Motor Car Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.) 2002 (2) RCR 606. Insofar as the plea qua personal bonafide necessity is concerned, the reasoning adopted by both the forums is very precise in character and fully acceptable in law. Though it is in evidence that first floor premises (of the place where respondent-landlord is himself running business) were available, we cannot deny to respondent- landlord the discretion to decide which premises would be most suitable for occupation by his son who, by all cannons of interpretation, can be said to be a member of his family. 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 11, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge