Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this petition and the connected Civil Revisions No.6793, 6794, 6795, 6796, 6797 and 6798 of 2010 can be decided by a common order as the facts, arguments raised and the controversy involved are the same. 2. During the course of arguments, it emerged that Parbraham Ved Parkash Sat Guru Mission (registered) is a public trust and is having 29 shops which constitute a market at outside Kapoori Gate, Batala. The Trust filed eviction petition against all the tenants impleading ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent. Since the petitioner-tenant had paid the arrears of rent, it was held by the Courts below that the tender was not invalid and short and the ground of non-payment of rent was not available to the landlord. The Courts below upheld the ground of personal necessity. It was stated by the landlord that the Trust intends to run a school and a dispensary and, therefore, after the shops are vacated, they shall construct a school, dispensary and a library. 3. It is not disputed that the landlord-Trust is a charitable trust. Qua the 12 co-tenants, vide Ex.PD dated 3.1.2003, the Rent Controller had caused eviction of 12 tenants upholding the ground of personal necessity. The appeal filed by those 12 tenants was also dismissed vide order Ex.PC passed by the Appellate Authority on 23.2.2004. Aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, those 12 tenants filed Civil Revision No.982 of 2005. Copy of the same has been made available by Counsel for the petitioner for perusal. The impugned judgment was delivered in CR No.982 of 2005 by a Coordinate Bench. This Court, in Civil Revision No.982 of 2005, decided on 19.1.2007, observed as under:- "... However, the contention of the petitioner is not relevant as the ejectment of the petitioner has not been ordered merely on the ground of non-payment of rent but also on the ground of personal necessity. In case the ejectment of the petitioner was to be maintained on the ground of non-payment of rent then it would have been incumbent upon the Rent Controller to have assessed the rent provisionally and the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to deposit the rent. In case the ejectment of the petitioner was to be maintained on the ground of non-payment of rent then it would have been incumbent upon the Rent Controller to have assessed the rent provisionally and the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to deposit the rent. The rent petition in fact has been allowed in view of the finding recorded on issue No.3 wherein the Rent Controller has been pleased to hold that the premises in dispute were required by the respondent-landlord bona fide for its personal necessity. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the finding of learned Rent Controller on issue No.3 cannot be sustained as there is no evidence on record to prove bona fide legal necessity of the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the petitioner did not choose to challenge the finding of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.3 before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner having not chosen to challenge the finding of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.3 before the Appellate Authority, cannot be allowed to challenge the same before this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction." 4. The order passed in C.R. No.982 of 2005 was made subject matter of Special Leave to Leave and 12 SLPs were filed and all those SLPs were dismissed by a common order in SLP (Civil) No.8309 of 2007 by Honble Apex Court on 9.7.2007. It is not disputed that the ground of personal necessity as enumerated in the present eviction petition, was also pleaded in the eviction petition filed against 12 co-tenants whose eviction has been upheld upto Supreme Court. However, Shri Arun Bansai, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has made an attempt to distinguish the judgment passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.982 of 2005 by stating that in those cases, before the Appellate Authority, no argument was raised qua issue No.3, i.e., ground of personal necessity. Therefore, the Courts below have committed a grave error in relying upon judgment Ex.PD, PC and PB and order of Honble Apex Court in judgment Ex.PA. 5. I have perused the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.982 of 2005, relevant part of which has been reproduced above. Therefore, the Courts below have committed a grave error in relying upon judgment Ex.PD, PC and PB and order of Honble Apex Court in judgment Ex.PA. 5. I have perused the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.982 of 2005, relevant part of which has been reproduced above. It has been specifically stated in Civil Revision No.982 of 2005 that the argument regarding non-payment of rent was not relevant as the eviction was caused on the ground of personal necessity also. For recording finding on issue No.3, i.e., personal necessity, before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the matter of fact is that the reasons for causing eviction on the ground of personal necessity in those eviction petitions and the present eviction petitions are the same. It was also pleaded in the case of 12 cotenants that the shops are required for building dispensary, library and school, therefore, this ground has been upheld upto Supreme Court. In.the present case, before the Appellate Authority, a specific argument was raised that the landlord has got possession of 12 shops and thus, it satisfy the requirement of the landlord. The Appellate Authority held that the landlord is the best judge of its needs and observed as under: - "11..... landlord is otherwise is the best judge of its need and it has been pleaded in all the ejectment petitions that the trust is to start a school and dispensary for the benefit of the general public and to spread religious education and thoughts given by the deceased. One shed is also required to be constructed for langer and also for visiting people to take rest when the Satsang is held and without the entire space it is not possible for the trust to raise construction and as admitted by the appellants the shops are situated on two sides of the road or which ejectment is sought and moreover it is not a matter of land of 1 kanal or so as alleged by the appellants. It is highly impossible if the shops,which have covered the entire property on both side of the road remained to be existed as the petitioner trust has chosen to use the property only for the mission of the trust and not for its commercial use and the need of the trust is not a mere will or desire. It is highly impossible if the shops,which have covered the entire property on both side of the road remained to be existed as the petitioner trust has chosen to use the property only for the mission of the trust and not for its commercial use and the need of the trust is not a mere will or desire. It is the basic need that the trust requires the possession of the entire shops for re-construction of school building, dispensary, Satsang Ghar and other building which is only possible if the possession of all the shops be delivered to the trust. As far as the argument raised by the Counsel for the appellants that the site plan has not been sanctioned, yet the Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the site plan cannot be got sanctioned unless and until the possession of the entire shops for which ejectment has been sought is delivered to the trust. Hence the argument so raised by learned counsel for the appellants is devoid of any force. ..." 6. It is not that the Courts below have only relied upon the judgments given in cotenants case, they have also assessed the need of the landlord on the basis of evidence led, however, the judgments rendered in earlier litigation qua co-tenants have been taken into consideration to lend corroboration to the ground pleaded by the landlord. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has, however, stated that he will raise another argument which has not been raised in the case of the other cotenants. It is stated that the landlord is a public trust and, therefore, they cannot plead the ground of personal necessity. It is not disputed that the object of the trust is charitable work. Opening of school, dispensary and library is in consonance with the objects of the trusts, therefore, it cannot be said that public trust, for achieving its objects, cannot plead personal necessity. Hence, no interference is warranted. The present petitions are dismissed.