Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This revision petition is directed by the petitioner- tenants who have been ordered to be evicted from the commercial building/shop situated in the urban area of Mahilpur, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Garhshankar in a petition instituted by the respondent-NRI-`specified landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). 2. Before directing the petitioners eviction, the Rent Controller, Garhshankar has also declined their application for leave to contest. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenants vehemently urges that: (i) no eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act is maintainable at the instance of a NRI, unless he is the exclusive owner of the demised premises. Since the respondent is only a co-owner, the objection against the maintainability of the eviction petition raised by the petitioners, constitutes a triable issue; (ii) the respondent is not the landlord of the petitioners as the demised premises was let out by Jarnail Singh; (iii) the respondent-landlord has no bonafide personal necessity and the premises is being got vacated only in order to sell the same, and (iv) the alleged personal necessity no longer survives as the respondent-landlord has already obtained an eviction order against Maya Kishan who is a tenant in the adjoining shop. 5. It is, however, not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that against the eviction order passed under Section 13-B of the Act, at the instance of the respondent-landlord, the tenant Maya Kishan approached this Court in Civil Revision No.3717 of 2009 and the first three contentions noticed above, were raised by the said tenant also. The aforesaid revision petition has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.7.2009 after holding that in view of the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, it is not necessary for a NRI landlord to be the sole owner to initiate proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act and even a coowner can maintain such petition. As regards the plea that the respondent is not the landlord, it was observed that as per the proof of title qua the subject-property produced on record, the respondent alongwith his brother, namely, Jarnail Singh and Kulwant Singh are joint owners of the same and even if the demised premises was rented out by Jarnail Singh, it is for and on behalf of all the co-owners. 6. The petitioners last contention that in view of the eviction order passed under Section 13-B of the Act against Maya Kishan, who was a tenant in the adjoining shop, that the respondents personal necessity no longer survives, also carries no weightage. Firstly, there is nothing on record to suggest that possession of the adjoining shop occupied by Maya Kishan has been taken over by the respondent-landlord and secondly, the respondent-landlord has specifically pleaded that he requires both the adjoining shops to start his business and has sought eviction of both the tenants simultaneously. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement and cannot be dictated by the tenant to restrict his business plans in one shop only. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 8.7.2009 passed in Civil Revision No.3717 of 2009 (Maya Kishan v. Karam Singh), coupled with the observations made herein above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.