IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2808 of 2009 Date of decision:18.05.2009 Jai Pal Handa ...Petitioner versus Mrs.Motia Grover ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ----- 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 revision is against the concurrent order of eviction made, upholding the requirement of the landlord for establishing her own business. The defence of the tenant was that the landlord owned yet another portion of the property which was in her own occupation and that she did not require the petition mentioned property for running a karyana business which the landlord claimed that she was going to commence if the order of eviction is passed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the daughter herself was not examined and in an action between the same parties, the landlord had admitted that the portion of the property which was in her possession was being put to use for running a business in STD/PCO booth service. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Civil Revision No.2808 of 2009 - 2 - Authority have considered this evidence and have concluded that the business was being run only by the daughter and that the requirement of the landlord for the adjoining property for her business after retirement was perfectly justified. The factual rendering on due appreciation of the evidence placed before the Court is not a matter that would survive for consideration in revision. 3. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. Time for eviction two months. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.05.2009 sanjeev