JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. 1. Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 24 (5) of H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987 against the order passed by learned Rent Controller and affirmed by learned Appellate Authority whereby learned Rent Controller passed eviction order against tenant and directed the tenant to hand over and deliver the vacant possession of demised premises to landlord within a period of two months w.e.f. 28.12.2013. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. Devender Partap landlord filed eviction petition under section 14 of HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987 pleaded therein that premises is non-residential and monthly rent of the premises is Rs.1800/- (One thousand eight hundred) per month. It is pleaded that premises was constructed in the year 1990. It is further pleaded that electricity and water facilities provided in the premises. It is further pleaded that premises is situated in ward No.5 Municipal Council, Sundernagar District Mandi HP. It is further pleaded that premises was let out to tenant in the year 1995. It is further pleaded that landlord sought voluntarily retirement for starting his own business of hosiery and also to settle his son Bikram Pratap Singh in the business. It is further pleaded that there is no other shop available to landlord. Prayer for acceptance of eviction petition sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of tenant pleaded therein that present petition is filed just to harass the tenant. It is further pleaded that premises was constructed prior to 1990. It is further pleaded that premises is in possession of the tenant since 1989. It is further pleaded that landlord has two other shops in the same building. It is further pleaded that son of landlord is a trained Pharmacist and he is serving in a reputed concern and is getting handsome salary. It is pleaded that brothers of landlord is also joint co-owner of premises. Prayer for dismissal of eviction petition sought. 4. As per pleadings of parties learned Rent Controller framed following issues on dated 12.10.2011. 1. Whether premises is required by landlord for his bonafide personal use as alleged?. ...OPP. 2. Whether landlord is entitled for eviction of tenant from premises as claimed?....OPP. 3. Whether petition is not maintainable? ...OPR. 4. Relief. 5. Learned Rent Controller decided issues No. 1 and 2 in affirmative and decided issue No.3 in negative. 1. Whether premises is required by landlord for his bonafide personal use as alleged?. ...OPP. 2. Whether landlord is entitled for eviction of tenant from premises as claimed?....OPP. 3. Whether petition is not maintainable? ...OPR. 4. Relief. 5. Learned Rent Controller decided issues No. 1 and 2 in affirmative and decided issue No.3 in negative. Learned Rent Controller passed eviction order against tenant on dated 28.12.2013. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the eviction order tenant filed appeal before learned Appellate Authority Mandi camp at Sundernagar and learned Appellate Authority affirmed the order of learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal on dated 28.11.2015. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller and learned Ist Appellate Authority tenant filed present revision petition. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and also perused entire records carefully. 9. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition: (1) Whether revision petition filed by tenant is is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition?. (2) Relief. 10. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 10.1 AW1 Devender Partap landlord has filed affidavit Ext AW1/A in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that AW1 was posted as Superintendent in H.P. University Shimla and sought voluntarily retirement to start his business of hosiery. There is recital in affidavit that son of AW1 is unemployed and presently he is working at Baddi and AW1 also wants to settle his son in his business. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 required the premises bonafidely. There is further recital in affidavit that other two shops have been rented. One shop rented to Kamal Kishore in the year 2003 and second shop was rented to M/s Laxmi Medical Store in the year 2000. There is recital in affidavit that tenant is running sweet shop. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant in the year 1995 assured that he would vacate the shop within five years. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 has arranged Rs.400000/- (Four lacs) for business purpose. In cross-examination AW1 has admitted that premises is comprised of two stories and AW1 has admitted that 5/6 rooms are situated in the ground floor and 5/6 rooms are situated in the upper floor. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 has arranged Rs.400000/- (Four lacs) for business purpose. In cross-examination AW1 has admitted that premises is comprised of two stories and AW1 has admitted that 5/6 rooms are situated in the ground floor and 5/6 rooms are situated in the upper floor. AW1 has admitted that he is residing in the upper floor of the premises. AW1 has admitted that he did not file any eviction petition against other tenants. AW1 has admitted that his son is serving at Baddi. 10.2. AW2 Karan Shamsher Singh also filed affidavit Ext AW2/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in the affidavit that AW2 has seen premises which is rented out by Devender Partap AW1 to Hari Singh tenant. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 was posted as Superintendent in H.P. University Shimla and sought voluntarily retirement to start his business of hosiery. There is further recital in affidavit that son of AW1 Vikram Partap Singh is unemployed and is working as temporary worker at Baddi and AW1 intends to settle his son in business. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 bonafide required the premises in dispute. There is further recital in affidavit that other two shops have been rented to different tenants namely Kamal Kishore and M/s Laxmi Medical store in the year 2003 and 2000. There is further recital in affidavit that in the premises in dispute tenant is running sweet shop. There is further recital in affidavit that in the month of September 2010 tenant was requested by AW1 to evict the premises. There is further recital in affidavit that premises was rented out in the year 1995 and tenant has assured that he would vacate the premises within five years. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 has arranged sum of Rs.400000/- (Four lacs) for business purpose. AW2 has admitted in cross examination that AW1 is his class fellow. AW2 has admitted that son of AW1 is working at Baddi. AW2 has denied suggestion that AW1 is not in position to run business. He has denied suggestion that salary of the son of AW1 is rupees forty to fifty thousand per month. 10.3. AW3 Jitender Thakur has filed affidavit Ext AW3/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that premises was rented out by AW1 to tenant. AW2 has denied suggestion that AW1 is not in position to run business. He has denied suggestion that salary of the son of AW1 is rupees forty to fifty thousand per month. 10.3. AW3 Jitender Thakur has filed affidavit Ext AW3/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that premises was rented out by AW1 to tenant. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 was posted as Superintendent in H.P.University Shimla and sought voluntarily retirement to start business of hosiery. There is further recital in affidavit that son of AW1 is unemployed and working as temporary worker at Baddi. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 wants to settle his son in business and bonafidely required premises. There is further recital in affidavit that two other shops were rented to Kamal Kishore and M/s Laxmi Medical Store in the year 2003 and 2000. There is further recital in affidavit that in the month of September 2010 AW1 requested tenant to vacate the premises but tenant declined. There is further recital in affidavit that premises was rented out in the year 1995 and tenant has assured that he would vacate the premises within five years. There is further recital in affidavit that landlord has arranged a sum of Rs.400000/- (Four lacs) for business purpose. In cross examination AW3 Jitender Thakur has admitted that AW1 is his relative. AW3 has admitted that premises is comprised of two stories. AW3 has admitted that in the ground floor shops have been rented out and in the upper floor AW1 is residing with his family members. AW3 has admitted that son of AW1 has qualified B-Pharmacy course and is posted in private company. AW3 has denied suggestion that AW1 intends to give premises to other tenant in order to receive enhanced rent. 10.4. AW4 P.S.Sen Advocate has stated that notice Ext AW4/A was sent at the instance of landlord to tenant through registered post. He has stated that postal receipt is Ext AW4/B and acknowledgment receipt is Ext AW4/C and reply is Ext AW4/D. 10.5 RW1 Hari Singh tenant has filed affidavit Ext RW1/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that RW1 is tenant of shop premises. There is recital in affidavit that premises was rented out in the year 1989 for commercial purpose of running a sweet shop. There is recital in affidavit that RW1 is tenant of shop premises. There is recital in affidavit that premises was rented out in the year 1989 for commercial purpose of running a sweet shop. There is further recital in affidavit that rent of the shop was fixed at Rs.600/- (Six hundred) per month in the year 1989 but with the passage of time rent rate was enhanced from time to time in four times and now the monthly rent of the premises is Rs.1800/- (One thousand eight hundred) per month. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant is paying rent regularly to landlord. There is further recital in affidavit that landlord has two other additional shops in the same building adjoining to the shop of tenant which have been rented out to two different tenants. There is further recital in affidavit that one shop was rented out to M/s Laxmi Medical Store in the year 1995 and another shop was rented out to Kamal Kishore in the year 2007 for running general store. There is further recital in affidavit that Kamal Kishore expired in the month of November 2011 and after his death his shop rented out to his son Sonu through fresh agreement of tenancy for running business of general store. There is further recital in affidavit that landlord has retired from government service in the year 2002 and now landlord is getting handsome pension from State government. There is further recital in affidavit that son of landlord is trained B Pharmacist and is employed in a reputed company at Baddi and is getting handsome salary. There is further recital in affidavit that premises is not required bonafidely by landlord. There is further recital in affidavit that present petition is filed just to harass the tenant in illegal manner. In cross examination tenant has denied suggestion that premises was given on rent for five years. Tenant has admitted that he received notice from landlord and he also filed response. Tenant has denied suggestion that landlord is in urgent bonafide need of premises. Tenant has denied suggestion that he has not paid bills of water and electricity charges. 10.6 RW2 Narain Singh has filed affidavit Ext RW2/A in examination-in-chief. There is further recital in affidavit that parties are known to RW2. There is further recital in affidavit that Hari Singh is the tenant of shop premises. Tenant has denied suggestion that he has not paid bills of water and electricity charges. 10.6 RW2 Narain Singh has filed affidavit Ext RW2/A in examination-in-chief. There is further recital in affidavit that parties are known to RW2. There is further recital in affidavit that Hari Singh is the tenant of shop premises. There is further recital in affidavit that shop was rented out in the year 1989 for commercial purpose for running a sweet shop. There is further recital in affidavit that rent of shop was Rs.600/- (Six hundred) per month in the year 1989 and thereafter with the passage of time rent rate was enhanced from time to time in four times and now as of today the monthly rent of shop is Rs.1800/- (One thousand eight hundred). There is further recital in affidavit that landlord is also owner of other two shops in the same building adjoining to the shop of tenant which have been rented out to two other tenants namely Kamal Kishore and M/s Laxmi Medical Store. There is further recital in affidavit that one shop was rented out to Kamal Kishore in the year 2007 and another shop was rented out to M/s Laxmi Medical Store in the year 1995. There is further recital in affidavit that Kamal Kishore died in the month of November 2011 and after the death of Kamal Kishore the shop was rented out to his son through fresh agreement of tenancy for running business of general store. There is further recital in affidavit that landlord has retired from government service in the year 2002 and now he is getting handsome pension from State government. There is further recital in affidavit that wife of landlord is also retired as C.H.T from government service and she is also getting handsome pension from government. There is further recital in affidavit that son of landlord is trained B Pharmacist and is employed in reputed company at Baddi and is getting handsome salary. In cross examination RW2 Narain Singh has denied suggestion that premises was given for five years only. RW2 has admitted that son of landlord has qualified B Pharmacist course and he is working at Baddi. He has denied suggestion that no shop of landlord remained vacant at any point of time. 11. Following documentaries evidence filed by parties. In cross examination RW2 Narain Singh has denied suggestion that premises was given for five years only. RW2 has admitted that son of landlord has qualified B Pharmacist course and he is working at Baddi. He has denied suggestion that no shop of landlord remained vacant at any point of time. 11. Following documentaries evidence filed by parties. (1) Ext AW4/A is legal notice given by landlord Devender Partap to tenant Hari Singh. (2) Ext AW4/B is postal receipt. (3) Ext AW4/C is postal acknowledgement. (4) Ext AW4/D is reply to notice given by tenant. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that when eviction petition was filed by landlord in the year 2011 at that time ground for eviction of tenant from non-residential premises on ground of personal requirement was not available to landlord and amendment in HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987 came into effect in the year 2012 and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is true that in the original act there was no ground for eviction of tenant on the ground of personal requirement relating to non-residential premises. H.P Urban Rent Control (Amendment) Act 2009 was assented by President of India on 28.2.2012 and was published in H.P Rajpatra on 16.3.2012 and ground for eviction of tenant for personal requirement of landlord was also added in commercial premises. It is well settled law that when legislator enacts statute it creates rights and obligations and its operation is always prospective unless expressly its operation is made retrospective in operation. It is also well settled law that when Apex Court gives decision then Apex Court always declares pre-existing rights and obligations of parties. It is also well settled law that judicial decision of Apex Court qua case of similar nature is operative upon pending cases as per Article 141 of Constitution of India. In case reported in 2013 (5) SCC 243 title Hari Dass Sharma Vs. Vikash Sood and others Hon'ble Apex Court of India applied provisions of Amended Act 2009 upon pending cases also. It is held that in view of case law cited supra provision of H.P Urban Rent Control (Amendment) Act 2009 will also apply to pending cases under H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987. 13. Vikash Sood and others Hon'ble Apex Court of India applied provisions of Amended Act 2009 upon pending cases also. It is held that in view of case law cited supra provision of H.P Urban Rent Control (Amendment) Act 2009 will also apply to pending cases under H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that landlord has not filed present eviction petition with clean hands and concealed true facts from Court and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Tenant did not adduce any positive evidence on record that landlord has concealed true facts from court. Plea of tenant is rejected on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that landlord retired in the year 2002 whereas present eviction petition was filed by landlord on 29.4.2011 after gap of long period and this revision petition be allowed on this ground is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Ground for eviction of tenant for bona-fide personal use in commercial premises accrued to landlord after amendment in H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987 w.e.f. 16.3.2012 vide Act No.8 of 2012. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow revision petition on this ground. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that landlord and his wife are getting handsome pension and their son is serving in reputed company at Baddi and on this ground revision petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that personal requirement of landlord includes requirement of family members also. It is well settled law that tenant cannot dictate terms to landlord. In the present case it is proved on record that landlord has sought voluntarily retirement for running business in the premises. It is held that personal requirement of landlord is bonafide and genuine. See 2001 (2) SCC 355 title M.L.Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singal. See 2001 (8) SCC 561 title Siddalingamma and another Vs. Mamtha Shenoy. See 1999 (6) SCC 222 title Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta. See 2002 (5) SCC 397 title Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal. 16. See 2001 (2) SCC 355 title M.L.Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singal. See 2001 (8) SCC 561 title Siddalingamma and another Vs. Mamtha Shenoy. See 1999 (6) SCC 222 title Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta. See 2002 (5) SCC 397 title Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that there are other tenants also and landlord did not file any eviction petition against other co-tenants and petition is bad for non-joinder of co-tenant is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that choice of accommodation should be left to subjective choice of landlord only. It is well settled law that landlord is best judge of his need. See 2003 (1) SCC 462 title Akhileshwar Kumar and others Vs. Mustaqim and others. See 2002 (8) SCC 765 title Savitri Vs. Sachidanand. See 2002 (5) SCC 397 title Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal. See 2003 (4) SCC 549 title Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and another. See 2005 (5) SCC 375 Kailash Chand and others Vs. Dharam Dass. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that learned Rent Controller dismissed application of tenant filed under order XXI rule 26 CPC for stay of execution proceedings in execution petition and on this ground revision petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Landlord filed execution petition and in execution petition tenant filed application under Order XXI Rule 26 CPC for stay of execution proceedings. Learned Advocates of both parties admitted before learned Executing Court that appeal filed by tenant against eviction order dismissed on 2.1.2016 by learned Appellate Authority. Learned Executing Court held that execution petition is pending before court since 19.5.2015 and eviction order was passed by learned Rent Controller on 28.12.2013. Learned executing court held that thereafter tenant filed revision petition before High Court of HP and which remained pending before Hon'ble High Court of HP almost for two years and thereafter revision petition was withdrawn from High Court of HP by tenant on 8.5.2015 and thereafter appeal was filed before learned First Appellate Authority in the year 2015 by tenant and said appeal was dismissed. Learned executing court held that there would be no purpose for delaying the execution proceedings. Learned executing court held that there would be no purpose for delaying the execution proceedings. No stay order of execution proceedings produced before executing court on dated 6.1.2016. It is well settled law that in revision petition High Court should not reverse findings unless findings are perverse. See AIR 1991 SC 455 title Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan Vs. Tuffail Mohammed. See AIR 1995 SC 1357 title P.Udayani Devi Vs. V.V.Rajeshwara Prasad Rao and another. See 2002 SC 1004 title Gurdial Singh and others Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and others. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that brother of landlord is also joint co-owner of demised premises and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Tenant in reply admitted tenancy of landlord in premises at the rate of Rs.1800/- (One thousand eight hundred). Landlord did not seek any relief against his brother in eviction petition. Facts admitted need not to be proved under section 58 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. It is held that brother of landlord is not necessary party in eviction petition. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that order of learned Rent Controller and order of learned First Appellate Court are not perverse and are not illegal. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Relief). 19. In view of findings on point No.1 revision petition is dismissed. File of learned Rent Controller and learned First Appellate Authority along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application (s) if any also disposed of.