Civil Revision No. 3518 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3518 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Suraj Mohan Batra ....Petitioner Versus Asha Rani and another ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant is in revision to obtain invalidation of the concurrent finding (recorded by the learned Rent Controller as also learned Appellate Authority) upholding the plea of personal necessity raised by the respondent. Before undertaking the adjudicatory exercise, it must be noticed that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has in- built limitations in the matter of appreciation of evidence. The relevant pronouncements in the context are Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 1999 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 805 and Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased) through LRs. and others (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1. Civil Revision No. 3518 of 2009 -2- **** Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that petition itself is deficit as it does not contain statutory announcement which a landlord is required to make in terms of provisions of Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In the light thereof, the argument proceeded, the petition deserve to be outrightly negatived on point of maintainability. The plea is resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent who argued that it is no longer open to the petitioner- tenant to raise that plea because the respondent-landlord had entered the witness box, as his own witness, and he had been subjected to full length cross-examination. In that view of things, the argument proceeded, the plea with regard to non-maintainability of the petition cannot be raised. On consideration of the controversy in its entire perspective, I do not find any force in the plea on behalf of the petitioner. It may be noticed, in the context, that the plea aforementioned had not been indicated in the grounds of appeal before the learned Appellate Authority or in the ground of revision before this Court. In such an eventuality, the raising of that plea is not appropriate. This view of mine is supported by Shri Sham Dass Vs. Shri Sunder Singh and another 1978(1)RCR 597. It was, then, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the projected need had not been substantiated on Civil Revision No. 3518 of 2009 -3- **** record. The plea raised is bereft of force. It will be apparent, from a conjunctive perusal of the judgment rendered by learned Rent Controller as also learned Appellate Authority, that the respondent- landlord had raised a precise plea that the premises are required for the own use of the landlord, who wants to shift over to the ground floor as his customers find it difficult to climb the stairs to reach the first floor where he is presently running his business. One of his sons has graduated in Hotel Management and the other is studying to be a Chartered Accountant. Both of them require the tenanted premises for running their own business. There is plethora of law on the point that need for sons has to be inferred to be need of the landlord. I have not been persuaded to find any fault in the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Rent Controller and also by the learned Appellate Authority in the manner of appreciation of evidence qua the projected need of respondent-landlord. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 28, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE