Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the judgment dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby his appeal has been dismissed while upholding the order of eviction dated 12.03.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Amritsar on the ground of personal bona fide need of the Respondent -landlord.
(2.) CHALLENGING the aforesaid Judgment, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the grounds set up by the Respondent -landlord for eviction of the Petitioner are false and he does not need the shop in question for starting a business as at the time of filing of the petition, landlord was of the age of 79 years and moreover he is seeking the shop in question for the use of his son who has not stepped into the witness box to support the aforesaid plea and with whom he has strained relationship. While upholding the order of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority has observed as under: There appears to be no force in the contention of the counsel for the Appellant. It has been deposed by AW3 Harvinder Singh regarding decrease of STD/PCO business regarding popularity of mobile phone. Thus, the income of Surinderjit Khosla from the said business cannot farther the claim of the Respondent. Surinderjit Khosla is residing in his Nanake house from 1970 to 1993 -94. The application for ejectment was filed on 21.12.2007. It cannot be presumed that the circumstances of the applicant and his son and their relationship will remain always the same and cannot be changed. It was much prior to the date of institution of the application that the son of the applicant was residing in Nanake House. The rent application has not been filed by the applicant as specified landlord, he being retired employee by availing the benefit of specific provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in this behalf. Rather, regular application for ejectment has been filed. Even if he is getting pension and some other income from rent, it does not preclude him to ask the Respondent to vacate the demised shop for running the business by the applicant and his son Surinderjit Khosla. It has rightly been held by the learned Rent Controller that the drawing of pension by the applicant and the income from rented shop are such factors that the sufficient source of income and bona fide need are entirely different aspects. The evidence adduced by the parties and the law cited before the trial Court appears to have been appreciated in right respective. When the applicant desires to establish a business for himself and for his son, mere his old age and that he was retired about 20 years ago are no ground to throw away his claim but otherwise from the preponderance of evidence appearing on record, it is established that the need is bona fide . With my respectful submissions and agreement to the pronouncements relied upon by the counsel for the Appellant, the court is of the opinion that there is no reasonable basis with the Appellant to apply the said pronouncements to the facts of the present case. The non -examination of the son of the applicant in the circumstances of the case is not fatal to the applicant. Thus, the courts below, on the basis of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that need of the Respondent is bona fide. Even otherwise, it is settled law that landlord is the best judge of his needs and he is to see as to in what manner he is to use the suit property for his personal use.
(3.) I find no merit in this petition.;