Civil Revision No.752 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 752 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.5.2010 Lalit Mohan ...Petitioner Versus Harjeet Kaur Sodhi ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. Both the forums (learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority) recorded a concurrent finding upholding the entitlement of the respondent-landlord to evict the petitioner tenant from the tenanted premises on a finding of personal bonafide necessity. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord owned only a part of the tenanted premises and that she came to purchase the other ½ share thereof only during the pendency of the trial. It is, however, not the averment on behalf of the petitioner- tenant that petitioner-tenant had amended the pleadings so as to challenge the validity of the impugned ejectment action on the above noticed premise. The learned counsel, however, states that the respondent-landlord was indeed cross-examined on point of acquisition of title during the pendency of ejectment plea of having to explain the legal acceptability of evidence in the absence of pleadings in the relevant behalf. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant argues that the plea with regard to denial of Civil Revision No.752 of 2010 -2- **** relationship of landlord and tenant came to be indicated in the grounds of revision in this Court. He is, however, not in a position to argue that there is any inaccuracy in the following observations made by the learned Appellate Authority:- “An inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be raised by the appellant at this stage, as this plea was never raised before the Rent Controller that applicant Harjeet Kaur was not the full fledged owner of the property.” The fact of concurrence of view dissuades me from interfering in the impugned order which is based upon sound, appropriate and acceptable reasoning. Even otherwise, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.S.Zehad Vs. K. Raghvan 1998 (2) RCR 628. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 04, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge