Civil Revision No. 2952 of 1984 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2952 of 1984 Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Raja Ram Kaushal ...Petitioner Versus Jagdish Rai Kapoor ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-landlord raised a plea for eviction of the respondent-tenant tenanted premises on various averments. It was averred that the respondent-tenant had sublet a portion of the tenanted premises to indicated three persons. The other averment was that the tenanted premises had been let out for the running of a general merchandise shop but the respondent-tenant had started utilising it for the purpose of storage and sale of poultry products and non-vegetarian food besides the business of soft drinks etc. It was also the allegation that the respondent-tenant had done acts which impaired the value and utility of the premises, by making various wooden partitions and making holes for fitting the racks etc. The further plea is that the respondent-tenant had made the tenanted premises vulnerable to resumption by the Administration for the violation of the provisions of Capital of Punjab Civil Revision No. 2952 of 1984 -2- **** (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. Besides aforementioned three facets, the petitioner-landlord also raised the impugned plea for ejectment on an averment that he requires the tenanted premises for his personal bonafide use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller decided all the issues against the petitioner-landlord. In appeal, the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller negativing the plea for perusal use and occupation was not assailed before the learned Appellate Authority and that finding came to be affirmed. However, the other findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority on merits thereof. It may be noticed, at very outset, that it is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner-landlord had since filed another petition against the respondent-tenant (for eviction of tenanted premises) on a plea of personal bonafide necessity. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller (and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority) on the other facets of eviction deserve invalidation. It is argued that there is enough material on record to prove that the averred sub-tenants are in possession of the tenanted premises. The plea raised is totally devoid of force. There is plethora of evidence to prove that the other sub-tenants are none else or other than the real brothers of the respondent-landlord. The learned Rent Controller recorded a finding of fact that respondent Civil Revision No. 2952 of 1984 -3- **** having been concededly indicated that tenancy had been created on 28.10.1971 i.e. prior to the coming into force the Rent Act in the urban area of Chandigarh i.e. on 4.11.1972 and there is not an allegation even in the ejectment petition about when exactly the petitioner has sub let the premises to the sub-tenants and also in view of the own admission made by the petitioner-landlord to the effect that he does not know since when the petitioner and his brothers are working together, it has to be held that subletting had not been proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to aver that there is any factual inaccuracy in the finding of fact recorded by the learned Appellate Authority and he has not been able to invite my attention to any material obtaining on the file which could justify his request for invalidation of the relevant finding. That part of the finding shall stand affirmed accordingly. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- landlord has also not been able to invite my attention to any material on the basis whereof finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller on point of material impairment could be set aside. That finding shall stand affirmed accordingly. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. April 19, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge