The judgment emphasizes that while exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record and should confine its consideration to whether the findings of fact were according to law and did not suffer from any error of law.

JUDGMENT

U.U. Lalit, J. - Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 6.9.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.4781 of 2011 and Criminal Revision No.8734 of 2016.

3. The facts leading to the filing of appeal arising out of Criminal Revision No.4781 of 2011 are:

(a) The respondent-Rajesh Kumar took on rent shop on the ground floor of suit premises bearing No.464/2 (old) and 422/8 within the municipal limits of Kaithal, District Kaithal, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the "Ground Floor Premises") from the appellants at a monthly rent of Rs.1700/- including House Tax.

(b) An eviction petition being E.P.No.11/2 of 2008 was preferred by the appellants under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1973 ("the Act" for short) seeking eviction of Rajesh Kumar on the ground that the Ground Floor premises were required for the personal need as specified in para 3(a) of the petition seeking eviction. Said para 3(a) was as under:

"a) That the tenanted premises are required by the petitioners for their own use and occupation. The husband of the petitioner no.1 namely Sat Parkash Goel was previously an employee in the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Kaithal and retired on 30.11.1999. The above-said Sat Parkash Goel and the petition no.1 are having two sons. Both the sons are settled at Delhi. After retirement the petitioner no.1 along with her husband started residing with her son but now some differences have arisen because of which the petitioner no.1 and her husband are not getting the proper respect and treatment from their son and they are feeling as if they are burden on their children/sons. The petitioner no.1's husband wants to start a Jewellery shop in the tenanted premises and for running the jewellery shop the tenanted premises are required by the petitioner for the necessity of petitioner no.1's husband. The petitioners are not occupying any other building in the main bazaar Kaithal and have not vacated such building without sufficient cause."

(c ) A reply was filed by Rajesh Kumar denying the claim made by the appellants. The matter was contested and the evidence was led in the matter.

(d) The Rent Controller by order dated 21.12.2010 decreed the Eviction Petition. The requirement pleaded by the appellants was found to have been established and it was observed:-

"10. From the perusal of the records of the case, it is observed that the relationship between the landlord and tenant is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that he is in occupation of the premises and there has been no previous litigation between the parties. The petitioners are claiming a bona fide requirement as petitioner no.1-Smt. Daya Rani and her husband Shri Sat Parkash Goel want to shift out from their current abode in Delhi. They have contended that they are presently residing with their son Rajiv at Delhi but they do not get along with him. Therefore in order to live a dignified life, the couple wants to return to Kaithal where Shri Sat Prakash Goel shall run a jewellery shop in the demised premises."

(e) Rajesh Kumar being aggrieved, preferred Rent Appeal No.21 of 2011 before the appellate authority, which by its judgment and order dated 11.6.2011 dismissed said appeal. After considering the evidence on record, the appellate authority observed:

"..The appellant/respondent/tenant cannot compel the respondent/petitioner no.1 and Sat Parkash to stay at Delhi with their son or to carry on business with him at Delhi. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that landlord is the best judge of his requirements. It is no business of the tenant to dictate his terms to the landlord as to which of the property would be best suited to him. In Raju and Others's case [2009(2) HLR 558 (P&H)] it has been observed that cases of bona fide requirement should be construed in liberal way by the courts.....

20. In the present case the bona fide requ