Civil Revision No. 5527 of 2002 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5527 of 2002 Date of decision : 20.5.2010 Baldev Krishan ....Petitioner Versus Dr. Sunil Mahajan ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The landlord-petitioner filed two ejectment petitions (Case No.66/2/97 instituted on 18.3.1997 and Case No.86/97 instituted on 17.11.1997). The former petition was filed under Sub Section 1(A) of Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Controler of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”); while the latter was filed under Section 13-A of the Act. While in both the petitions, arrears of rent for certain periods had been claimed, the plea for personal necessity was common. The plea, in the context, was that the petitioner-landlord having retired from Government job requires the tenanted commercial premises for running a business therein. Both the petitions came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller. However, in a view of reversal, the learned Appellate Authority negatived the view and the petitions were ordered to be dismissed. Civil Revision No. 5527 of 2002 -2- ***** It requires pertinent notice that appeal had been filed only against the judgment rendered by the learned Rent Controller in petition No.66/2/97. It was vehemently argued, at the very outset, on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-tenant cannot evade ejectment in view of the fact that only one appeal having come to be filed against the judgment in two cases, the judgment rendered by the learned Rent Controller in other case would be inferred to have attained finality. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant before the learned Appellate Authority was incompetent inasmuch as the filing of an appeal is not envisioned under the Act and it is only a revision petition which was competent before this Court. It is apparent, from a perusal of the material obtaining on the file, that the petition bearing No.66/2/97 (against which an appeal came to be filed) hads been filed on the authority of the provisions of Sub Section 1(A) of Section 13-A of the Act. The respondent-tenant had contested the pleadings and both the parties are found to have adduced evidence at the trial. It has, thus, to be inferred (though nothing specific in the context appears on the record), that the respondent-tenant had been given leave to defend in that case. In such an eventuality, an appeal against impugned order would be competent. I am supported, in this view of mine, by a Single Bench ruling of this Court in Manoj Kumar Aggarwal and another Vs. Vijay Kumar 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 272. Civil Revision No. 5527 of 2002 -3- ***** Insofar as the plea for personal necessity is concerned, the learned Rent Controller had recorded a proper finding to the fact that the petitioner-landlord having retired from public service was entitled to obtain the eviction of respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises wherein former wanted to run his own business. Learned Appellate Authority was not justified in reversing that finding by noticing that there is nothing on record to prove that the petitioner- landlord had not vacated any similar premises in the same urban area after the commencement of the Act. Ofcourse, the rent legislation does provide that petitioner- landlord, in order to succeed, must plead that he requires the premises for personal necessity, that he is not in possession of any other similar premises in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated any premises after the commencement of the Act. In this case, all the statutory declaration are noticed to have been made in the pleadings. The mere fact that the petitioner-landlord did not testify on oath that he had not vacated any similar premises in the urban area concerned since coming into operation of the Act cannot outweigh the fact that the (duly verified) pleadings to that effect are indeed available on record. In the event of absence of evidence on oath, it cannot be wished away that the petitioner-landlord did make the relevant statutory declarations in the course of the pleadings at the trial, There being no other evidence to the effect that that petitioner-landlord had vacated any such similar premises during the same urban area since the commencement of the Act, the petition Civil Revision No. 5527 of 2002 -4- ***** filed by the petitioner-landlord in terms of provisions of Sub Section 1 (A) of Section 13-A of the Act cannot be invalidated. It can, thus, be safely culled out from the record that the judgment rendered by the learned Rent Controller in case No.86/97 (directing the ejectment of the petitioner – tenant from the tenanted premises) has attained finality since no appeal came to be filed against it. Further, it is equally clear that, for the reasons and the ruling noticed in the course of discussion in para No.6 of the judgment, the appeal filed by the petitioner – tenant before the Appellate Authority was not competent and that a revision petition only was competent). In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority shall stand set aside; while the judgment rendered by the learned Rent Controller shall stand upheld. The respondent-tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 20, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE