Civil Revision No. 4165 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4165 of 2007 Date of Decision: 12.11.2008 Vijay Manohar and Another …Petitioners Versus Jagdev Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Darshan Singh had filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of Vijay Manohar and Rajinder Mohan, both sons of Lachhman Dass. Eviction petition was filed on two grounds that the shop in question is required by the landlord for personal necessity and the same has been sublet by Vijay Manohar to Rajinder Mohan, his brother. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the shop is required for personal necessity and there is subletting. It is not disputed that in pursuance of order of the two Courts below i.e. learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority, in Civil Revision No. 4165 of 2007 2 execution proceedings, the landlord had obtained possession of the premises. The case of the landlord was that Vijay Manohar was inducted as tenant on rent at the rate of Rs.125/- per month on 30.8.1970. It was further stated that petitioner No.1 had sublet the shop to petitioner No.2 without obtaining written consent of the landlord. Landlord examined Jasbir Singh, Clerk from the office of Labour Inspector Shops, as AW1, Rajesh Verma as AW2, Gurcharan Singh as AW3, Balbir Singh as AW4, Gurpreet Singh as AW5, Jagdev Singh, son of the landlord as AW6. Tenant-petitioner also examined Maninder Kumar as RW1, Dheeraj Kumar as RW2, petitioner Vijay Manohar had himself appeared as RW3 and also examined Jagdish Verma, Tax Assistant as RW4. Jagdev Singh AW6 stated that the shop was required for his personal necessity. He further stated that Vijay Manohar had left the shop in question and thereafter he started running his business in the said shop under the name & style of M/s Herry Electricals, 30 Industrial Estate, Patiala. An argument was raised before learned Rent Controller that from the income tax returns, it is evident that a very meager income has been shown from the demised shop as Vijay Manohar is not doing business of manufacturing generators at Industrial Area, Sirhind Road, Patiala. Further argument raised that the landlord has been receiving rent even after coming to know the fact of subletting, was not accepted. The Court took into consideration that the landlord is running shop in another rented premises, therefore, the premises are required for him for his bonafide personal necessity and for his family which included his son Civil Revision No. 4165 of 2007 3 also. These findings have been affirmed by learned lower Appellate Court. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the tenant has stated that it is a case of very old tenancy, therefore, it will cause great hardship to the tenant in case he is evicted. He has further stated that son of landlord has another premises, therefore, he can continue there and personal necessity is not borne out. It was held after appreciating the evidence by the two Courts below that the landlord required the demised premises for his personal necessity. No re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence can be done while exercising revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the tenant has been already evicted and possession has been taken over by the landlord, no interference is warranted. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 12, 2008 “DK”