Civil Revision No.4389 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4389 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:30.08.2011 Bhupinder Singh ....petitioner Versus Om Parkash .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rohit Verma, Advocate & Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the respondent *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is tenant's revision petition challenging the orders dated 10.09.2009 and 16.02.2011, whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the shop in dispute on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlord by both the authorities below. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that after the order of eviction was passed, the petitioner has come to know that there was another shop which was got vacated by the respondent- landlord vide order dated 25.10.2005 from one Davinder Kaur and the same was available to him and therefore the requirement of the respondent-landlord was not bona fide. However, a perusal of the impugned orders would show that the said argument was raised by the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Controller, Amritsar, and the same was Civil Revision No.4389 of 2011(O & M) 2 rejected, as petitioner had failed to produce on record any evidence regarding the fact that respondent-landlord was the owner of the said property. By moving an application under Order 41 Rule 27, petitioner has placed on record certified copy of the order dated 25.10.2005 and the order dated 22.04.2006 to show that the respondent-landlord has got vacant possession of the adjoining shop during the pendency of the instant petition. A perusal of the application would show that the necessary ingredients for allowing the petitioner to lead additional evidence are missing. Petitioner has not averred in the application for leading additional evidence the date or time of knowledge of order dated 25.10.2005. Petitioner has not given any reason for not filing such an application before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has mentioned that in order to effectively adjudicate the dispute, the aforesaid additional evidence is necessary. The petitioner has not acted with due diligence. Even, no reason has been averred in the said application as to why, despite having knowledge about the aforesaid factum, he could not produce the evidence before the Rent Controller, Amritsar. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 30.08.2011 neenu