C.R. No.2660 of 1991 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2660 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.05.2009 Ram Rakhi .......Petitioner Versus Tara Singh and others ....Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petition for ejectment filed by the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent and for a bona fide use was upheld by the Rent Controller but the Appellate Authority reversed the decision on the ground of legal necessity of the landlady, the other ground of non- payment of rent having been given up by the landlady herself in the course of proceedings. 2. The reversal of the decision took place on a re-appreciation of the evidence by the Appellate Court when it held that the landlady was living in another house of her brother-in-law, Sh. Kedar Nath and there was no necessity for the landlady to vacate from the place where she was living. The Appellate Court reasoned that if the landlady had been allowed to remain in occupation of the property of Kedar Nath all along there was no reason why she would be expelled from that property, even without giving her own husband's share. The Appellate Court had observed that the story of partition as was C.R. No.2660 of 1991 (O&M) -2- contended by the landlady herself could not have been true and the landlady had been occupying four rooms at Nawanshahr and the need was not properly established. 3. While the Court in revision will not normally exercise its jurisdiction to upset a finding of fact, if the findings recorded were either perverse or it was failed to notice some other factual considerations that went into the decision of the Rent Controller, there shall still be a scope for intervention. It is brought out in evidence and it has also been referred to by the Rent Controller that Kedar Nath, who had been living at Shimla wanted to return to his own native town in Nawanshahr during his old age and he was requiring the landlady to vacate from the premises as communications P-2 to P-4 established. There was clear evidence also of the fact that the landlady had vacated the premises 10 days prior to the filing of the petition and she was located herself in her nephew's house. The evidence had been let in to the effect that Kedar Nath himself moved into his own residence and that evidence was available through AW3, Bhagwan Sarup. This fact had also been referred to in the averments of the petition itself. Two other witnesses AW-1, Love Kumar and AW-5, Prem Kumar gave evidence to the effect that the landlady had to vacate from the property, which she was occupying when Sh. Kedar Nath had returned from Shimla to Nawanshahr. The evidence of AW- 1 and AW-5 on the basis of which the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Kedar Nath had returned and that she was living in her nephew's house was completely ignored by the Appellate Authority. There is not even a mention of any of the statements in the entire body C.R. No.2660 of 1991 (O&M) -3- of judgment. The Appellate Court had deflected its attention to a plea of partition said to have been made between Kedar Nath and landlady's husband and finding that the oral partition was not true, it also held that her need have not been properly explained. 4. The decision rendered by the Appellate Authority that the landlady's requirement was not bona fide and that she was interested only in securing the higher rentals is falsified by the fact that it was never the contention of the tenant that the landlady had made any demand for higher rent. As a matter of fact, it transpires in evidence that the rent was a measly Rs.12/- which the tenant was paying from 1963 onwards and there had not been any demand for enhancement of rental at all times till the petition was filed. The reversal of finding on the bona fides of the landlady made by the Appellate Court does not accord with evidence and the judgment by the Appellate Authority has been rendered without reference to a positive evidence of proof of the requirement and the landlady's own predicament of having lost the courtesy of her brother-in-law, who had got in back into his own property and therefore, the landlady had perforce to look for accommodation in her own property. 5. Under the circumstances, the order of the Rent Controller directing eviction is restored and the order reversing the judgment by the Appellate Authority is set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 06, 2009 Pankaj*