JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J.(Oral):-Present petition is filed by the tenant under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 impugning judgement dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Appellate Court thereby allowing appeal of the landlord and directing eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal needs of the landlord. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the landlord initiated eviction proceedings on the ground of bonafide needs. The case set up and established by the landlord is that one of the landlords Surinder Singh requires property in dispute to set up business of cloth of jeans and printing centre after constructing a basement hall and showroom of modern design. 3. Petitioner herein contested the eviction petition on the ground that the landlord is having other properties in Nabha Town and is doing his business with his brothers and there is no bonafide need of the landlord. The Rent Controller having observed that the landlord is having other properties in the same city, found no need in favour of the landlord and dismissed the eviction petition. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement passed by the Rent Controller, dismissing the eviction petition, landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was allowed vide impugned judgement. 4. The Appellate Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its judgement observed that the properties mentioned by the tenant as the properties available in the hands of the landlord are, in fact, joint properties of the landlord in which Surinder Singh is having 1/3rd share. It is further observed by the Appellate Court that one of the properties is 25.7 sq. yrds, another property is only 48 sq. yrds. and the third property is only 130 sq. yrds. The Appellate Court also found that the property available with the landlord is not sufficient to start the business proposed by the landlord. 5. The Appellate Court has also observed that it is for the landlord to select accommodation or place to start his business and the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the eviction petition was filed by three landlords and the need of one of the landlords Surinder Singh was considered by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has not recorded any finding on the need of other landlords. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the eviction petition was filed by three landlords and the need of one of the landlords Surinder Singh was considered by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has not recorded any finding on the need of other landlords. Next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that finding of the Appellate Court is based on wrong discussion of the evidence available on the record and is beyond pleadings. 7. I have given my serious thought to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the property is owned by three owners and need of one of the owners is set up, that is sufficient ground to allow eviction petition. There is no need to set up and establish the need of all the joint landlords. It is settled principle of law that property can be required by one of the co-owners and if the need is found to be genuine and bonafide, in that event the tenant can be directed to be evicted. In the eviction petition, need setup by the landlord is that in the tenanted portion after renovation, cloth business in the name and style of Jeans Palace and Print Centre shall be started and in evidence it was stated that the business would be run by Surinder Singh. There is no such thing which can be said beyond the pleadings. In the evidence, it is clarified that the business which is to be started in the tenanted property would be started by Surinder Singh, who needs separate business for himself. 8. It is also settled principle of law that tenant cannot dictate the landlord to utilise other property in the hands of the landlord. Landlord is the best judge of his properties. Landlord has to decide which property can be best utilised for his personal bonafide need. In the present case, landlord could successfully prove that other properties under his joint ownership are not sufficient for his need and property in dispute is the best choice where landlord can start his business. 9. It is also settled principle of law that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence. In the present case, landlord could successfully prove that other properties under his joint ownership are not sufficient for his need and property in dispute is the best choice where landlord can start his business. 9. It is also settled principle of law that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence. However, this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction can upset the finding of the Court below, if this Court finds that the judgement is based on no evidence, non-admissible evidence was accepted and admissible evidence was ignored or burden of proof was wrongly placed on the parties or when Court below has committed illegality or jurisdictional error. In the order impugned, I do not find any legal or jurisdictional error. Impugned judgement is based on pleadings and evidence available on record. No other point is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner – tenant. Petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner – tenant states that some reasonable time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the property in dispute. Petitioner – tenant shall furnish usual undertaking and shall pay entire rent due within two weeks from today before the Rent Controller. In the event of filing undertaking and payment of the rent due, eviction order shall not be executed till 31.12.2010. However, it is made clear that if no undertaking is filed by the petitioner – tenant then the eviction order shall be executed forthwith. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ------------