Civil Revision No.4668 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4668 of 2011 Date of Decision:03.08.2011 Radhey Shyam ......Petitioner Versus Harish Chander Aggarwal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that M/s Harish Chander Aggarwal and Sons(HUF) through its Karta Harish Chander Aggarwal son of Onkar Parshad- respondent Nos.1 and 2-landlords(for brevity “the landlords”) filed a petition for ejectment against Radhey Shyam son of Siri Kishan-petitioner-tenant and other tenants, from the property in dispute, on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. During the course of pendency of the ejectment petition, the petitioner-tenant moved an application for appointment of the Local Commissioner to report about the material used, for the construction of demised premises, which was dismissed by the trial Court by way of impugned order dated 04.06.2011. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, petitioner- Radhey Shyam-tenant filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire Civil Revision No.4668 of 2011 2 matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that, the witnesses examined by the landlords have stated that the building, in question, is made of garter, mud, sand and stone tukries and in order to contradict their statements, the appointment of the Local Commissioner to report about the material of the building, is essential, sans merit. 6. As is evident from the record(para 3 of the revision petition) that the landlords have filed the ejectment petition against the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity that they need the premises for their own purpose. Whether the building, in question, is made of 'A' material or 'B' material, is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the ground of personal necessity. Moreover, the Local Commissioner cannot possibly be appointed to prove the genuineness or otherwise, of the statements of the witnesses, examined by the landlords, as urged on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the contrary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto-sensu” deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 7. Above all, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-tenant, for appointment of the Local Commissioner, by virtue of impugned order dated 04.06.2011. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 03, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4668 of 2011 3