Civil Revision No. 4164 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4164 of 2009 Date of decision : 5.2.2010 Davinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Abinash Kaur Sodhi and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Deepak Nayyer, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. In a concurrent chord, the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the landlady (respondent herein) had been able to prove that the tenanted premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the same are required by the respondent for personal bonafide need. The tenant (petitioner herein) is in revision against the finding aforementioned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that there is no reliable evidence available on record which could be supportive of the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority. The plea raised is oblivious of material obtaining on the file to the effect that the petitioner required the tenanted premises to Civil Revision No. 4164 of 2009 -2- *** settle her son who wants to run business therein ( i.e. shop in question) and to reside on the rear side thereof or on the first floor of the premises aforementioned. The deposition of the landlady to the above effect cannot be wished away, particularly when veracity thereof could not be assailed in the course of cross examination. In that context, it is also to be noticed that it is in evidence that aforementioned son of the respondent herein is of marriageable age and is not following any avocation at present. Insofar as the other finding is concerned, photographs Ex. A/3 to Ex/. A/7 are proof adequate enough to affirm that finding. It requires particular notice that it was averred by none else or other than the petitioner herein that the tenanted premises can be made fit for human habitation by effecting certain repairs. It is also in evidence in the statement of AW-1 Buta Singh Mann (a qualified Engineer) that the tenanted premises is more than 100 years old; that it made up of nanakshahi bricks as well as standard size bricks and that there were cracks in the wall. Though the petitioner herein also examined an expert (RW-1 Sunil Saini) but he did not give the definite age of the building. He also conceded that there is hole in the roof of the premises wherefrom there is leakage of water. Though a plea was raised at the trial that the hole aforementioned had been made by the landlady herself, the learned Appellate Authority correctly recorded that the petitioner herein has not been able to prove how could that old lady, who is even otherwise putting up with her son at Kapurthala, could make that hole in the roof. Civil Revision No. 4164 of 2009 -3- *** Having noticed that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also learned Appellate Authority are relatable to the material obtaining on the file, I have no reservations in holding that the petition deserves to be negatived. The petition shall stand rejected. Faced with the predicament of having to explain the above fact based finding, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleads for compassion and prays for the grant of little more while to enable the petitioner herein to arrange alternative accommodation. While accepting the plea for compassion, based on the averred predicament, it is ordered that the petitioner herein shall have six months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. February 05, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE