CR No.4092 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4092 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 08.12.2009 **** Karan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Piare Lal . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for respondent ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the eviction order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon vide impugned judgement dated 30.04.2009. (2). The case of the respondent-landlord was that the demised premises was let out to the petitioner vide Rent Note dated 13.03.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- plus house tax and that the petitioner is liable to be evicted, inter alia, on the grounds that (i) he is in arrears of rent since 1st February, 1999; (ii) the demised premises is required by the landlord for his own personal use and occupation as his nephew, Harish Kumar who is Graduate and possesses CR No.4092 of 2009.doc - 2 - Diploma in Computer Science wants to open a Computer Centre; (iii) the respondent has become a source of nuisance, as after getting the electricity-supply disconnected, he has installed a heavy generator set for the welding works and which is causing high vibrations and make noise besides emitting smoke due to which the health and environment of the landlord’s family members, who are residing in the same building as well as of the neighbours, is adversely affected. (3). The petitioner-tenant contested the eviction petition and controverted all the grounds for eviction taken by the respondent-landlord. (4). Both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence and on consideration thereof, it has been concurrently held by the Courts below that the petitioner- tenant has started the welding works in the disputed shop and after getting the electricity-supply disconnected on 15th February, 1995, has installed a heavy generator set which has become a constant cause of nuisance to the family of the landlord and his neighbourhood. Consequently, the impugned eviction order has been passed and/or upheld. (5). Notice of motion. Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-landlord. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. CR No.4092 of 2009.doc - 3 - (7). It is pointed out at the outset by the counsel for the respondent-landlord, at the outset, that pursuant to the execution proceedings, the respondent-landlord has already taken possession of the demised premises and his execution application has been dismissed as fully satisfied by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, vide order dated 29.10.2009. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant also. (8). Be that as it may, I have gone through the impugned orders. It is the conceded position that at the time when the shop was let out, there was a regular electricity connection and a meter was duly installed. The petitioner- tenant, however, got the same disconnected in the February 1995 and got installed a huge generator set, capable to run the heavy welding machines. The fact that the demised premises is located in a thickly populated area and is a part of the residential building in which the landlord is presently residing along with his family, is also not in dispute. In these circumstances, the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below that the generator set has become a constant source of nuisance, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (9). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 08.12.2009 vishal shonkar CR No.4092 of 2009.doc - 4 -