IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.26861-CII of 2011 in/and Civil Revision No.5759 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2011 Tara Chand -----Petitioner Vs. Om Parkash & another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. C.M. No.26861-CII of 2011: After hearing learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner, this application is allowed and order dated 23.9.2011 is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number. Civil Revision No.5759 of 2011: This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 26.5.2010 of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, ordering eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises and judgment dated 3.2.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction. C.R. No.5759 of 2011 Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground that the demised premises are required by respondent No.1 for the need of his son who wants to run independent business. Both the authorities below, on appreciation of evidence on record, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the demised premises are required by respondent No.1 for the need of his son. The only contention raised before this Court to challenge the aforesaid finding is that during pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has come to know that respondent No.1 is owner of several other premises in the urban area concerned which are lying vacant and thus, the need of the respondent-landlord is not bona fide. However, counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that except the argument raised, there is no evidence on record to prove the aforesaid assertion, as made before the appellate authority and this Court. Thus, there being no material to support the said assertion made by the petitioner, the argument is liable to be rejected outrightly. Shri Navneet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further argued that respondent No.2 who is a co-owner of the demised premises has not stated that he is willing to give the shop in dispute to the son of respondent No.1 for setting up his business, thus demised premises cannot be got vacated only for the need of son of respondent No.1 and the petition is not maintainable as such. 2 C.R. No.5759 of 2011 Again the argument is without any merit. It is settled law that a co-owner can seek eviction of the tenant from demised premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement for and on behalf of every co-owner. Moreover, the present petition was filed jointly by both the respondents. Thus, no interference is warranted with the impugned orders. Dismissed. November 16, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3