Judgment 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act), whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of bona-fide use and occupation of the premises in dispute. 2. The landlord has sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he is working as an employee with his father in the medical store and, therefore, he requires the demised shop for carrying out his independent business. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact the landlord is not an employee but a partner with his father and that the landlord has first and second floors of the demised building in his possession, which can be used for the purposes of medical shop. Still further, it is argued that the father of the landlord has earlier got a tenant victed from another shop. These facts show that the landlord has sufficient accommodation in his possession for carrying out the business of medicines. 4. It has been found by both the Courts below that the landlord is a qualified pharmacist and he is working as an employee with his father and, therefore, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction in respect of the shop, which is considered suitable by the landlord for carrying out the business of medicines. It is further found that it is the choice of the landlord as to which of the premises, he finds suitable for carrying out his business. Though it is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities below that the landlord is in fact an employee with his father, but event if it is assumed that the landlord is in fact a partner along with his father, still the desire of the landlord to set up an independent business in another shop, cannot be said to be lacking any bona-fide. It is the natural desire of every parents to settle their son in an appropriate business. It was so held by the HON BLE Supreme Court in Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal 2002 (5) SCC 397. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the natural desire of every parents to settle their son in an appropriate business. It was so held by the HON BLE Supreme Court in Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal 2002 (5) SCC 397. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Still further, the shop was got vacated from the tenant-Behari somewhere in the year 1988. Thereafter one big shop was carved out by removing the intervening wall. With the passage of time, it is natural desire to grow in the business Therefore, it is natural desire to grow an independent business in separate shop, which can be made available to the landlord. Therefore, the bona-fide of the landlord cannot be doubted on the said ground as well. In view of the findings record, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the authorities below, which may require interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.