Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment affirmed by the learned first Appellate Authority, Ferozepur on 23.4.2002 on the ground that the demised premises are required for bonu fide use and occupation of the sons of the landlord. 2. The landlord has sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the room in question is being used as a shop of watch repair. The landlord has three major sons out of whom the eldest son Raj Kumar is running a shop of Pan-Bidi along with the landlord in one of the shops belonging to him. He is married but residing separately. The second son namely, Virender Kumar is aged about 24 years and has completed his studies about four years back. He is doing his business while sitting at the platform on the roadside, whereas his third son, who is aged 18 years is also working with his brother Virender Kumar. It is pleaded that no other suitable accommodation is available with the landlord to accommodate his grown up unemployed son, as two of the sons are working on the road-side. 3. The tenant has taken up the stand in the written statement that the landlord has three shops. One of the shops is not being used in the day time for the reasons best known to the landlord. He has contended that Virender Kumar son of the landlord is doing a business of confectionery etc. on the platform in front of the shop in possession of the landlord. In the night time, he places his goods in the shop and during day time, he sits at the platform with the material of the shop but he asserts that this shop is bigger than the shop in possession of the respondent. 4. To prove his bona-fide requirement, the landlord examined himself as AW.3 and produced his son Virender Kumar as AW.4. The landlord also examined AW1 Basant Ram, who is shop-keeper in the same vicinity where the shop in question is situated. On the basis of the statement of the witnesses, it was found that the landlord was not in possession and occupation of any other shop except shop No. 311. In the said shop the landlord is running business along with his eldest son. On the basis of the statement of the witnesses, it was found that the landlord was not in possession and occupation of any other shop except shop No. 311. In the said shop the landlord is running business along with his eldest son. Two of the sons of the landlord aged-25 years and 19 years, are working in Verandah on the roadside and, thus, it was found that the requirement of the sons of the landlord is, in fact, a bonafide requirement and the ejectment order was passed. The said order was affirmed in appeal as well. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord has three shops in his possession. One of the shops is lying vacant, though the landlord is stated to be working in one of the shops. It is argued that since one of the shops is lying vacant, the need of the respondent to evict the petitioner from the present premises in dispute is not made out. However, the said argument raised by the petitioner is not tenable. Apart from the fact that no such argument was raised before the learned Appellate Authority as the grounds on which challenge was made are enumerated in para No. 9 of the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Even otherwise, I do not find that the said, argument has any factual basis. In fact, the respondent while appearing as RW3 has stated that one of the shops is in his occupation and another in the occupation of the landlord and the third one is in the occupation of Harish Kumar. The landlord has not been cross-examined in respect of any alleged vacant shop available for use of the landlord. Therefore, the argument raised that one of the shops is lying vacant is without any evidence. On the backside of the shop is a residential building, which is in occupation of the landlord, but is lying vacant for the last 15 years. This residential portion according to the landlord is in dilapidated condition and cannot be repaired without the eviction of the tenant as the walls are stated to be common. 6. The allegation in the written statement that there is a shop towards the north of the shop in question as owned and possessed by the landlord, is not made out from the site plan Exhibit A.2. 6. The allegation in the written statement that there is a shop towards the north of the shop in question as owned and possessed by the landlord, is not made out from the site plan Exhibit A.2. North to the shop in possession of the petitioner is the passage providing access to the residential portion in the possession of the landlord. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is without any factual basis. 7. Faced with such a situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the previous ejectment petition, the landlord has pleaded the demised premises as residential building and now it is alleged to be non-residential building. The learned Appellate Authority in previous proceedings has held that the demises premises is a non-residential building. Thus it is not open to the landlord now to change his stand and to assert that it is a residential building. Therefore, the said argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in law. Once, in the previous proceedings, a finding has been returned that the demised shop is a non-residential building, the respondent could seek eviction of the tenant only on the permissible grounds in respect of a non-residential building. In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 227 (S.C.), the landlord has a right to seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building as well. 8. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any ground for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The order of ejectment shall not be executed for a period of one month from today. Hence, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. R.M.S. - Petition dismissed.