Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Shama Devi, widow of late Nanak Chand, tenant is now represented by her legal representatives namely Kailash Kumar, son, Lata and Sharda, daughters, respectively. 2. Landlady Surinder Kaur filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. Another additional grounds taken were that the tenant is in the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.1987 to 30.11.1995 and material alterations have been carried out in the demised premises and thus it has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. Personal necessity was made out that after the retirement of her husband, she wanted to settle at Gurdaspur and she was not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Gurdaspur. A lot of efforts and energy was carried out by the parties to prove the ownership of the property. 3. Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, at the outset has stated that in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded that the premises had been purchased by landlady from Sham Devi, widow of Shiv Nath, a fact which has been proved, he will not pursue this argument before this Court. A passing reference can be made to the fact that it was agitated before the two Courts below that Sham Devi widow of Shiv Nath used to sign in English or Hindu, therefore, signatures on the sale deed in Urdu doubted the veracity of the sale deed. Since this argument has been dropped during the course of argument, therefore, this Court need not dwell upon the same. 4. Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent, on the instructions from Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate, has stated that in eviction proceedings filed against two other tenants of the property, in a revision petition decided by this Court title of the landlady has been upheld. He has made reference to Smt. Sarda and Others v. Surinder Kaur (Civil Revision No. 1430 of 2008 (O&M) decided on 24.4.2008) and Ashok Kumar v. Surinder Kaur (Civil Revision No. 2994 of 2008 decided on 28.5.2008. The ground of non- payment of rent and having impaired material of the property have not been proved and pressed respectively and finding has been returned in favour of the tenant. Mr. The ground of non- payment of rent and having impaired material of the property have not been proved and pressed respectively and finding has been returned in favour of the tenant. Mr. Jain very candidly states that this Court need not devote attention to these issues. 5. Since both the Courts below returned concurrent finding of fact that demised premises is required on the ground of personal necessity, Mr. Gupta has referred to site plan to state that after the portion of house was got vacated from Ashok Kumar and other tenant, the ground of personal necessity will no longer remain as there is sufficient and suitable accommodation available to the landlady after the two tenants have vacated the premises. 6. Perusal of the site plan show that the portion in occupation of the tenants is in the middle of the house. The house was got vacated from Ashok Kumar tenant and another tenant Madan Lal son of Sukh Ram, consisted of one room each along with kitchen, verandah and a courtyard. Middle portion is the only dominant portion of the house, which is in occupation of the petitioners- tenants. Two portions which have got vacated are separated by way of middle portion. Therefore, to have the complete enjoyment of the property eviction of the petitioner is necessary. Therefore, this argument raised before me cannot be accepted. 7. Furthermore, it has been held that the personal necessity of the landlord is to be seen from the date when the eviction petition has been instituted and subsequent event may be relevant but cannot be made sole basis for determining the right of the landlord for getting the premises vacated. Furthermore, the landlord can get the entire property or parts of the property vacated from the tenant. Need of the family cannot be determined by the tenant. How much area and in which manner landlord wishes to reside is need based and it cannot be viewed from the perception of the tenant. Therefore, this argument is rejected. 8. Mr. Gupta in reference to site plan has stated that these are the three different portions of the house, therefore, once the landlady got two portions vacated, there is no justification for getting the other portion vacated. Therefore, this argument is rejected. 8. Mr. Gupta in reference to site plan has stated that these are the three different portions of the house, therefore, once the landlady got two portions vacated, there is no justification for getting the other portion vacated. As stated earlier, it is the middle portion which divide two other portions and it can be joined with other two portions for having a complete enjoyment of the house. Mr. Gupta having failed to convince me as the evidence has been appreciated and appraised by the two Courts below, made a reference to stray line of cross-examination of the landlady, wherein she stated that "I am prepared to accept Rs. 25,00,000/- for this house". A stray line of the cross-examination when a line before, it was put to her whether she was ready to accept Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- or Rs. 3,00,000/- was denied. This line cannot be taken as whole to demolish the case of the landlady. A hypothetical question is answered in hypothetical manner. Nothing revolves or hinges upon them. In, Cross examination question asked was hypothetical. 9. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that in the present case eviction application was instituted in the year 1995. It has taken 13 years for culmination of the proceedings before this Court. 10. In view of the concurrent findings arrived at by the two Courts below, no interference is warranted as the view taken by the two Courts below is neither perverse nor perfunctory. There is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.