Judgment Jaswant Singh, J. Petitioner (tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the concurrent findings returned by both the Authorities below, whereby ejectment application filed by the respondents (landlords) on the ground of personal necessity has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala, vide order dated 5.6.2012 and the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala vide its order dated 3.10.2012. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondents (landlords) filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner (tenant) from residential house No.58, Hem Bagh, near Officer Colony, Patiala on the ground of personal necessity of respondent no.1 Satinder Singh Bhatia who is working in Punjab & Sind Bank at Delhi and after retirement, desires to settle down at Patiala since all his relatives are in Patiala and respondent no.1 himself is also a native of Patiala. Thus, eviction was sought by the respondents (landlords). Upon notice, necessity as alleged in the ejectment application was denied by the petitioner (tenant) and it was stated that the respondents did not intend to settle at Patiala and no premature retirement has been sought by the respondent no.1 so as to show his personal necessity. Thus, prayer was made for dismissal of the ejectment application. Replication was filed wherein the entire contents of the petition were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead evidence and after appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller, Patiala allowed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. Both sides lead evidence and after appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller, Patiala allowed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) has argued that it is an admitted case of the respondents (landlords) that respondent no.1 is working on a good post in a bank at Delhi and it is quite unbelievable that a person who is residing and working in Delhi would want to come and stay in Patiala and thus the story as propounded by the respondents (landlords) that respondent no.1 would stay in Patiala after his retirement is totally false and a cooked up story so as to get an ejectment order from the authorities without there being any personal necessity. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and having gone through the case file carefully, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner (tenant) had admitted in his cross examination that the respondent no.1 (landlord) is employed at Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi branch and is a native of Patala. It is also admitted fact that all the relatives of the respondent no.1 landlord are residents of Patiala and further he had also admitted that there is no other residential premises in Patiala or elsewhere except the present premises which is under the ownership of the respondents (landlords). Thus, it stands admitted by the petitioner (tenant) that the premises in dispute is factually the only residential premises owned by the respondents (landlords). In these circumstances, if respondent no.1 (landlord) intends to come back and reside at Patiala which is his native town and settle down for the remaining years of his life, the court cannot doubt his intention, as it seems quite natural for a person to come back and reside at a place where his own relatives are staying and spend the remaining years of his life among them. Hence, the necessity as projected in the ejectment application by the respondent no.1 landlord cannot be doubted at all and the same has to be held as a bona fide one in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the admissions by the petitioner (tenant) himself in his cross examination. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition the same is hereby dismissed.