IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1561 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:21.03.2011. Ravish Kumar Jain ...Petitioner Versus Anuradha Bhardwaj and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in possession of one room of House No.4492/1-4 on a monthly rent of `1,250/-. The landlords sought eviction, inter alia, on the ground of his personal necessity which has been allowed by both the Courts below. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demised premises is a part of a residential building because its rear door opens in the main building, therefore, it falls within the definition of residential building. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Hem Raj Vs. Ramesh Kumar Khosla, 1994 HRR 478. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance. The aforesaid judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case simply for the reason that there is no evidence on record led by the petitioner that a door and window of the demised premises opens towards the main residential building. In the absence of pleading and proof in that regard, the tenant cannot take advantage of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, the present revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit and hence, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. March 21, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE