IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1844 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 26, 2010 The State of Haryana and others. …Petitioners Versus Kulwant Singh Tiwana and another. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present: Ms. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate, for respondent No.2. S.D. Anand, J. Both the Courts recorded a concurrent finding that the respondent – landlord had been able to prove that he requires the tenanted premises for his personal bona fide necessity. After noticing the relevant law on the point, the learned Appellate Authority recorded the following relevant fact-based observations in the context:- C.R. No. 1844 of 2010 “26. Accordingly, applying the above settled proposition of law to the facts in hand it comes out that as far as the dispute of factum of bona fide requirement of the respondent landlord is concerned, as held by the Ld. Rent Controller, there is sufficient un-rebutted evidence on record, which proves that the necessity put forward by the respondent – landlord to seek the ejectment of the appellants is bona fide and urgent and duly established on record. It is proved on record that after being retired as a Judge of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the respondent, who was residing in House No. 45, Sector 9, Chandigarh, has to vacate the same and he vacated it on 7.1.2008 and after that the respondent – landlord is residing in House No. 731, Sector 8, Chandigarh, being a licensee of his friend, who is at present residing at Bombay. Thus, it is proved that the respondent – landlord has no residential house in the urban area of Chandigarh nor he has vacated any such house except House No. 45, Sector 9, Chandigarh or have any other residential house. It is also proved t hat the house in question was taken by the appellants have already raised the constructions of the houses for its 2 C.R. No. 1844 of 2010 Ministers and the house in question was taken on rent for a short period and it was assured that as and when the Government houses will be constructed, it will be vacated. One of these assurance was given as back as in June 2001. No doubt, as argued by Ld. GP, the house in question has been purchased by the respondent landlord from its earlier owners fully knowing that it is in possession of the appellant, but it makes no difference because the landlord has stated that the earlier owners had sold it to him as they were in dire need of money and even otherwise, this is no ground to discard the case of the respondent landlord. 27. It is also proved on record that the respondent landlord is a aged man of about 83 years and he want to have his own house and live with his family consisting of his sons and grand children and as such in the given facts and circumstances, his case of personal necessity is legally and factually true and bonafide and not whimsical desire as alleged by the appellants. It is proved that at present respondent landlord is residing in the house of his friend and as such, he does not own any other residential house except the disputed one.” 3 C.R. No. 1844 of 2010 The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has not been able to invite my attention to any part of the impugned finding which would warrant interference. There is also no averment that there is any factual inaccuracy in the impugned order. The outer limit within which a Revisional Court can undertake the adjudicatory exercise was provided by the Apex Court in judicial pronouncements reported as Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1991 (1) Punjab Law Reporter, 805 and Shamshad Ahmad and others vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased) through LRs and others, (2008) 9, Supreme Court Cases, 1. On perusal thereof, it can safely be culled out that “a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact finding Court is wholly unreasonable.” In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no reasons to interfere in the impugned findings. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner – tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 26, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4