Civil Revision No.6164 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6164 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.11.2011 Puran Chand ....Petitioner Versus Munish Kumar ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 24.02.2009 of Rent Controller, Jagadhari ordering his eviction from the shop in dispute and judgment dated 04.08.2011 of the Appellate Authority whereby his appeal was dismissed against the aforesaid order. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that respondent-landlord filed the ejectment petition against the petitioner- tenant on the ground that on completion of his study of MBA, he wanted to open his office and as such the shop in question was required by him for his personal necessity. It was further alleged by him that the shop in question was earlier owned by Shri Om Parkash and under a family settlement dated 14.08.2002, it had fallen to his share and he has become the owner of the shop in question. Civil Revision No.6164 of 2011 (O&M) 2 In the written statement, the petitioner had stated that the respondent was not the landlord/owner of the shop in question and the same was owned by one Om Parkash who had rented out the same. It was further stated that the alleged family settlement was a created document just to defeat his rights. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised shop on the ground as alleged? OPP 2. Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR 3. Relief. It is noticed at this stage that petitioner claimed no other issue except as stated above. Parties led evidence in support of their respective case. It may also be noticed that petitioner had not led any evidence on record to prove his assertion that the aforesaid deed of family settlement was a sham transaction. Not only this, though the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the petitioner. However, in his cross- examination while appearing as RW1 he has clearly admitted that he had gone to the respondent many times requesting him to accept the rent for the shop in dispute but the landlord refused to accept the same. This admission on part of the petitioner itself is sufficient to hold that the petitioner had accepted the respondent as his landlord. However, before this Court, counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance on the admission of Civil Revision No.4874 of 2010,filed on behalf of one Rohit Garg who has also claimed ownership/landlord-ship of adjoining shop on the basis of the alleged Civil Revision No.6164 of 2011 (O&M) 3 family settlement. The reliance placed by the petitioner is mis-conceived as in the said civil revision petition No.4874 of 2010 facts are just opposite. In that case, the Rent Controller has ordered the eviction of the tenant accepting the family settlement but the Appellate Authority reversed this finding and, thus, civil revision has been before this Court filed by the landlord against the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing his ejectment petition on the ground that he is not owner/landlord of the demised shop. Even it may also be noticed in the said civil revision, landlord has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and alongwith that application, the landlord-petitioner has placed on record a decree of the Court whereby alleged family settlement in favour of Rohit Garg has been accepted and thus noticing argument on behalf of the landlord that he is the owner/landlord of the demised shop on the basis of family settlement, the petition has been admitted. Thus, the petitioner cannot take benefit of the admission of the aforesaid civil revision. It is specifically noticed that counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the findings of the authorities below that the tenanted premises are required for the respondent-landlord for his personal bonafide need. No other point has been argued. Dismissed. November 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE Civil Revision No.6164 of 2011 (O&M) 4