48 CR No866 of 2007 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA CHANDIGARH CR No866 of 2007 Date of decision Mayl 2009 1 r AjitSingh Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singhand others 1espondent CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE K KANNAN 0 Presen Mr KanwaljitSinghSenior Advocate with 0 M Prachi Sharma Advocate I for the petitioner C Mt Sudhir Pruthi Advocate I for the Z Ire e r 1 Whetherrepottersof Iocalnewspapers may be I allowed to see thejudgment 2 c6 2 To be referredto the reportersor not7 3 Whetherthejudgmentshould be reponedin CO the digest2 7 K KannanJ Z 1 The revision is againstthe order dismissingthe filed by the Iandlordunder Section 138 of the East PunjabUrban Rent Restriction Act 1949 The case was disposedof by the Rent Controller on the groundthat the af6davit Oled in proofof the evidence proposedto be given in chief examination was defective that the verificationhas not been properly made as per the decision of the Coun in 2003 Civil Courl cases 437 arid that personalnecessitypleadedby the Iandlordcannot be examined throughsuch a defective amdavit 2 The Gourt was no doubt dealing with the of the Act and the inadequacyof the evidence was dealt bythe 1 . uma 2012.08.23 13: 37 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 CR No866 of 2007 2 C Court by its reference to the fact that the adavit had not been properly veritled and the Coun found it sufficient for rejectingit even without reference to the affidavit The Coun had other materials on the basis of which it held that the Iandlords requirementhad not been established In the presentcase it is not in disputethat the Iandlordhad sworn to an affidavitwith his signatureat every page Ifthe facts disclosed Itl the aHidavitcontained referencesto some matters which could be on the basis of personalknowledgeand some matters which were only in the 1 r nature of hearsayor information speciOcrecitals about what were stated 0 on personalknowledgeand what were stated on belief would have 0 obtained relevance The idea is to put the oppositepany to deOnite I knowledge on the source of informationfor the deponentso that the cross I examination is directed to secure the source informationor of Z such evidence The principleenunciated in the judgmentcannot be appliedin all instances where the informationsuppliedcould be seen from I the recitals itself as to whether the partyis referringto the recitals either c6 from his knowiedge or belief and if it penainedto onlyone class viz of CO either the evidence enumerated throughpersonalknowledgeor through 7 Z belief and that the person againstwhom the amdavitis soughtto be used r would have no difficultyin understanding the same it cannot be discarded bythe onlyfact that a clear delineationof the knowledge and belief was not made in the veritlcationportion In this case the veriOcationcontainsonly one paragraphand it refers onlyto matterswithin the principaiknowledge of the petitioner The entire affidavit has been culled out even in the groundsof revisionwhich are reproducedherel That 1 am the owner of the propertyin question Previouslythe propertyin questionwas owned by me andmy brotherst was mutuallysettled between the brothers and propertyin questionfell into my share Cenified copies of sale deeds are ExP1 and P2 Prior to the presentpetitionthereis 1JJ . uma 2012.08.23 13: 37 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SO CR No866 of 2007 3 one petitionfiled ulsec 13 of E P LRR Act which has been withdrawn I am NRl I went to Englandand remainedmore than 30 years I was doingbusiness there have retumed to India to settle permanentlyand start my 3 2 business In the propertyin questionafter reconstructing the prope So 1have filed the eJectmentpetitionagainstall the tenants in the property1 Building The site plan attached withthe petitionis correct to the spot which is Ex P3 Copy of thepasspoltdulynotarizedis EP4 I have come to India to settlepermanently to start my own business am blessed with 1 threechildren e One son and two daughtersPresentlyl am Iivingat villageSarhal Qazian DIstt Nawanshahr at our 0 ancestral house Now I have purchasedmy own house C0 no510A Model Town Jalandhar Copyof the ration card duly I notarizedis Ex Pe5 The propertyin questionis requiredby me for my own use and occupationas 1 have to start the I businessafter reconstructionof the building Il Z 3 It can be seen that the afOdavits refer to a settlementbetween the brothers includingthe petitionerhis own petition for ejectmentagainstthe tenant which was done on the fact that he was I a5 doingthe business in Englandreturn from Englandand his status as NRl C10 the fact that he had children the reference to purchaseof a propenyat 7 Jalandharand his requirement of the propenyThere is no scope for the L opposite par1yto have any doubt about the fact that the petitionerwas to all the averments in the affidavitthat could peMainonlyto his own personal knowledge The reference to the expressionbeliefin the veri6cati0nas comingafter the expressionknowledgeis whollyirrelevant and it could never be stated either by the oppositepany or by the Coun thatthe affidavitcould not be reliedon bythe pany 4 On the personalrequirementof the Iandlord as spoken to by him his evidence was allowed to be even crossaexamined If therewas an objection as regardsthe amdavitit could have been stated by the pat1yaffected by it but if the parlyhimself had undenaken the crosse 1 . uma 2012.08.23 13: 37 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 CR No866 of 2007 4 examination on the basis of the averments made in the amdavit Rent Controller had no need to comment about the validityof the amdavitor the relianceof the patlyon his own affidavitand the evidence secured through him in the crosseexamination The Rent Controller has merelyrejectedthe whole evidence and has stated that the petitionersrequirementof the premises and the examination of the issue whether the petitioners 1 requirement of the premiseswas bona fide would have to fail bythe fact that the affidavitsof PW and PV2 were defective and hence could not 1 be taken intoconsideration He has reasoned that since the amdavitcould 0 not be taken in evidence then it amounted to no evidence on the Ole Of 0 the petitionersrequirementof his own use for occupationthe approach I 0 of the Rent Controller in my opinion is whollyerroneous Havingregard Wn I to the fact that the entire evidence is available the Rent Controller IS Z directed to consider fresh issue of bona Odesof the requirement afresh on 0 the basis of evidence broughtthroughthe amdavit and the cross I examinationof the witness 08 5 Under the circumstances the order of the Rent Qo Controller dated 192007 is set aside and the matter is remittedto the 7 Z Rent Controller for consideration afresh on the basis of what is stated 0C above 6 CiviI revision is disposedof in the above terms l K KANNANI JUDGE Mayl42009 archana1 Oe6 e 4 Ol l . uma 2012.08.23 13: 37 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document