Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders 12.04.2010 and 20.04.2011, passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, Patiala, respectively, ordering eviction of the Petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity and bona fide need of the Respondent -landlords.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the courts below have erred in law in ignoring that the Respondents had failed to plead and prove all the necessary ingredients of personal necessity and the averments on which the eviction of the Petitioner was sought i.e. personal necessity was an excuse. Learned senior counsel further argued that even otherwise, it is well settled that mere desire by itself was not sufficient to secure eviction of a tenant and there has to be an element of need as opposed to mere wish. It was also argued that it is the pleaded case of the Respondents that they are in service and they are well settled in their jobs and thus, do not require the shop in question for their own use. It has been further asserted that the Respondent -landlords have failed to place on record any termination orders terminating their jobs which require them to start their own business and thus there was no bona fide personal necessity of the Respondent -landlords. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. The material on record indicates that their exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Respondent -landlords are doing the private jobs and they do not have any other shop in the area as admitted by Ashok Kumar RW5 during the course of cross -examination. The Respondent -landlord while appearing in the witness box has testified with regard to the bona fide need on his part and that of other Respondents. They have put forth a case to the effect that they are working with the private employers and consequently the shop in dispute is bonafidely required for starting their own business. The need of the Respondent -landlords as stated by them has to be believed until and unless it appears that the need pleaded by them is unfounded, unreasonable and fanciful. There is no material to show that the need to run their own business by the Respondents can be found faulted with. The findings that the need on the part of the Respondents to get the shop in dispute is real is supported by evidence on record.
(3.) AS such no irregularity is made out in the findings of the courts below. Simply because the Respondents have not placed on record their termination letter, will not be enough to hold that their need was not real as it is not necessary for them to wait for the termination orders from their employers to start their own business. It is well settled that landlord is the best judge of his needs.;