JUDGMENT Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J.: - Instant revision has been filed in terms of Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short to be referred as ‘the Act’). The demised shop was rented out to Lachhmi Devi, by Kundan Lal father of the petitioner vide rent note Ex. A-1 dated 20.5.1983 w.e.f. 1.6.1983 on a monthly rent of Rs.275/-. Lachhmi Devi was using the demised premises for ironing clothes. This premises is a part of the residential house. After death of Lachhmi Devi, the respondent-Sudesh Kumar @ Goga her son engaged in the same profession in the shop in question. 2. After death of Kundan Lal, the property was inherited by his two sons, namely; the petitioner and his brother Madan Mohan. The brothers had partitioned the joint property and subsequent thereto a memorandum of partition, copy of which is Ex. A-2 was executed between them. Room Nos. 6 to 10 as per the site plan Ex. A-3 came to the share of the petitioner and room No. 10 is the demised shop in occupation of the respondent as tenant. There is no dispute now with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as concluded by the Courts below and also that the rent as claimed was tendered on the first date of hearing. 3. The controversy is confined only to the ground of eviction that the premises is required for bona fide need and occupation of the petitioner for opening stationery shop for his elder son Kuldip Kumar, who had passed 10+2, at the time of filing of eviction petition in the year 2005. That wife of the petitioner would be assisting his son in running the stationery shop. The other ingredients as specified in sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13 (3) of the Act were also pleaded. 4. The petition was contested by the respondent. It was stated that son of the petitioner was studying at Moga, whereas the petitioner himself was employee of Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB). It was even averred that earlier also an application for eviction was filed and the same was dismissed. 5. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues from the pleadings of the parties:- “1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged. OPA 2. It was even averred that earlier also an application for eviction was filed and the same was dismissed. 5. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues from the pleadings of the parties:- “1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged. OPA 2. Whether the demised shop is required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation as claimed? OPA 3. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true facts from the Court? OPR 4. Whether the petition is barred in view of the legal objections raised by the respondent? OPR 5. Relief.” 6. In support of his case, the petitioner himself appeared as AW-1 and was again examined in the rebuttal evidence. He also examined two other witnesses, namely; Tejwant Singh as AW-2 and Inderjit Singh AW-3, when the case was at the rebuttal stage. The respondent himself appeared as RW-1 and examined Amrik Lal RW-2. The learned Rent Controller, accepted the ground of bona fide need of the petitioner and consequently, passed the eviction order directing the respondent-tenant to vacate the premises within one month. The appeal filed by the respondent against the order of learned Rent Controller was accepted and the eviction order was set aside. Petitioner-landlord has, thus, filed the instant revision. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by both the Courts below as well as the records. 8. It was vehemently contended by learned petitioner’s counsel that it is the choice of landlord who wanted to open business in the shop in question to settle his son who was about 18 years old at the time when the petitioner was examined as AW-1 on 10.3.2006. The petitioner stated that his son did his 10+2 in the year 2005. Kuldip Kumar then joined JET Course in the same year which was a three years course. Son of the petitioner was thus, to complete his education in the year 2008 whereas the eviction petition was filed in the year 2005. The record of admission of the petitioner’s son in the Polytechnic at Moga was brought by AW-3 Inderjit Singh, employee of YRS Polytechnic, Moga. As per documents proved on record, Kuldip Kumar took admission in August, 2005. 9. The record of admission of the petitioner’s son in the Polytechnic at Moga was brought by AW-3 Inderjit Singh, employee of YRS Polytechnic, Moga. As per documents proved on record, Kuldip Kumar took admission in August, 2005. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the need of landlord on the date of filing of eviction petition has to be looked into and the fact that his son joined some other course during the pendency of eviction petition cannot be taken as adverse to the claim made by the petitioner as it takes long years in the eviction petitions attaining finality and son of the petitioner cannot remain idle as he had to do something to make his career. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon Pratap Rai Tanwani Vs. Uttam Chand, 2004 (8) SCC 490 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “8. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the normal rule is that rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as they were when the lis commenced and the only exception is that the court is not precluded from moulding the reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations. 10. 10. That was a case where for contesting the bona fides of landlord the tenant sought amendment of the written statement to highlight that during pendency of the matter son of the appellant had acquired the degree in engineering, got an employment in an Indian Company and subsequently was settled in USA and working there, with no chance of his coming back to India. The landlord, however, pleaded that since there was no other accommodation readily available Naresh Talreja pursued study in Engineering and temporarily engaged in USA. He wanted to come back and start his business. The Hon’ble Supreme Court under the circumstances held that judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject-matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused. The findings of the trial Court on the bona fide requirement affirmed in appeal by the Ist Appellate Court and 2nd Appellate Court, were upheld. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner has since retired during the pendency of instant revision petition on 31.3.2013 which factor should also be taken into account. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions and find no ground to interfere in the conclusions reached by the Appellate Authority. 13. Learned Appellate Authority observed as under:- “14. So at this stage by no stretch of, imagination, it can be expected that the son of the respondent will give up his study for purpose of running a stationery shop. Even after completion of his course, the son of the applicant will not run stationery shop. 13. Learned Appellate Authority observed as under:- “14. So at this stage by no stretch of, imagination, it can be expected that the son of the respondent will give up his study for purpose of running a stationery shop. Even after completion of his course, the son of the applicant will not run stationery shop. Even, if it is assumed that the son of the respondent may not get any job after completion of his Engineering course and he will have to run some business in the demised shop, this assumption at this stage is pre-mature and only time can tell as to whether after doing diploma in Engineering at Moga in the year 2008, the son of the respondent shall get some job according to this qualifications or he will run some business in the demised shop as per his qualification. But one thing is certain that at this stage, the son of the respondent shall have to concentrate on his study to pass his diploma course. 15. It is no doubt true that landlord is best judge of his requirements for his residential and business purpose and has complete freedom in the matter as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. 2000(1) RCR-135, but again this ruling could be made applicable for the benefit of the respondent, if he was to run business in the demised premises at his own. At present as already held, his son does not need the demised shop. Even the respondent will retire on superannuation from Punjab State Electricity Board on 31.1.2013 and such, this, being the situation, he cannot be expected to run any business in the demised shop.” 14. It would be appropriate to notice that the petitioner had earlier also filed Rent Case No. 8 of 27.3.1995 against Lachhmi Devi, the original tenant. The petitioner in the said eviction application took up the ground that the premises already in occupation of the petitioner was insufficient to accommodate himself and his family members. The evidence was led to the effect that the petitioner has one un-married sister and the other members of the family comprise of his wife and two children. The learned Rent Controller, dismissed the application by analyzing the evidence vide order dated 16.5.1996 (Ex. R-1). The evidence was led to the effect that the petitioner has one un-married sister and the other members of the family comprise of his wife and two children. The learned Rent Controller, dismissed the application by analyzing the evidence vide order dated 16.5.1996 (Ex. R-1). Appeal against that order was dismissed vide order dated 16.4.1998 copy of which is Ex. R-2. 15. No doubt the subsequent development may give a ground to the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant but the learned Appellate Authority having considered all the aspects came to a definite conclusion for which I do not find any scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Since, the son of petitioner was still undergoing the professional course which was to complete in the year 2008, the petitioner could set up this ground of settling his in the shop in question only thereafter. Also as the petitioner himself retired in January, 2013 from the Department that could also be another ground to seek eviction as a specified landlord or that the petitioner himself intended to start business after his retirement. Those grounds may give rise to a fresh cause of action which may still subsist. The material aspect in the instant case is whether the need of the petitioner was bona fide on the date of filing the petition for eviction. 16. The scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is given in Section 15 (5) of the Act which reads as under:- “15. Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State Government - (1) to (4) xx xx xx xx (5) The High Court may, at any time on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.” 17. A five Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh, [2014(3) Law Herald (SC) 2488 : 2014(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3245 (SC)] : 2014 (2) RCR (Rent) 210 held as under:- “27. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘legality’ is lawfulness. It refers to strict adherence to law, prescription, or doctrine; the quality of being legal. 28. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘legality’ is lawfulness. It refers to strict adherence to law, prescription, or doctrine; the quality of being legal. 28. The term ‘propriety’ means fitness; appropriateness, aptitude; suitability; appropriateness to the circumstances or condition conformity with requirement; rules or principle, rightness, correctness, justness, accuracy. 29. The terms ‘correctness’ and ‘propriety’ ordinarily convey the same meaning, that is, something which is legal and proper. In its ordinary meaning and substance, ‘correctness’ is compounded of ‘legality’ and ‘propriety’ and that which is legal and proper is ‘correct’. 30. The expression “regularity” with reference to an order ordinarily relates to the procedure being followed in accord with the principles of natural justice and fair play.” 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in dealing with the findings of fact, the examination of matter is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is “according to law”. This is expressly stated in Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander, AIR 1988 SC 1422 . Whether or not a finding of fact recorded by the subordinate court/tribunal is according to law, is required to be seen on the touchstone whether such finding of fact is based on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence or overlooking and ignoring the material evidence altogether or suffers from perversity or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Ram Dass’s case (supra) does not lay down as a proposition of law that the revisional power of the High Court under the Rent Control Act is as wide as that of the Appellate Court or the Appellate Authority or such power is coextensive with that of the Appellate Authority or that the concluded finding of fact recorded by the original Authority or the Appellate Authority can be interfered with by the High Court by re-appreciating evidence because revisional court/authority is not in agreement with the finding of fact recorded by the Court/Authority below. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum’s case (supra) ultimately held as under:- “45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum’s case (supra) ultimately held as under:- “45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re- appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 20. From the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any scope of interference in the firm conclusions reached by the learned Appellant Authority, especially, keeping in view the history of the matter when the earlier eviction application was also filed and dismissed. There is no merit in the instant petition and the same is thus, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------