CIVIL REVISION NO.5189 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 09, 2008 Satish Babber .....Petitioner VERSUS Rajinder Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B. S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-tenant successfully defended the ejectment petition filed by landlords, Rajinder Kumar and Pardeep Kumar, before the Rent Controller. The Appellate Court, however, went against him and has directed his eviction. He has now filed the present revision to impugn the order passed by Appellate Court, Moga. Respondent-landlords have purchased the demised premises through a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1990. According to them, the petitioner is their tenant at the rate of Rs.450/- per month excluding taxes. Respondents sought ejectment of the CIVIL REVISION NO.5189 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: petitioner on account of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.1996. In addition, the landlords also pleaded that they require this premises for their personal use and occupation for carrying out their business of sale and services of watches, electronic goods and appliances. It is pleaded that Rajinder Kumar, landlord, who is earlier working with his father, is to start his business separately and, thus, would require this demised premises for his own use and occupation. The petitioner appeared in response to the notice and resisted his eviction, pleading that the respondents never claimed themselves as owners of the shop in question on the basis of any sale deed. According to the petitioner, he was inducted as a tenant by Smt.Parkash Kaur in February 1995 and he has already paid rent to her at the rate of Rs.80/- per month upto June 1996. The petitioner tendered rent in the Court from 1.7.1996 to 31.8.1997 at the rate of Rs.80/- per month alongwith interest and costs in order to avoid his ejectment. Plea is that the respondent-landlords have wrongly claimed the rate of rent to be Rs.450/- per month. The bonafide need of the landlords for use and occupation of the demised premises is also contested and it is stated that respondent No.1, Rajinder, is already carrying on business in a shop situated at Court Road, Moga, which is a commercial area, whereas the present shop is located in residential area. It is accordingly pleaded that the need is totally non- existing and application for ejectment has been filed with the sole object to eject the petitioner from the property that is under his tenancy and also with the purpose to seek enhancement of the rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on CIVIL REVISION NO.5189 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: 24.7.2006, leading to filing of the appeal. Before the Appellate Court, the respondents pleaded that rent tendered was short and invalid and also pressed the ground of personal need. The Appellate Court found that the petitioner was able to prove that the rate of rent was Rs.80/- per month and accordingly held that tender made by the petitioner was complete. However, while dealing with the ground of personal necessity, it is held that need of the respondents is genuine. It is noticed that initially the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, which the respondents were able to substantiate by proving on record the sale deed and by examining Narinder Kaur, Registration Clerk. This fact was not then disputed by the petitioner. The case of the respondent-landlords is supported by the evidence led by Rajinder Kumar (PW3), who has deposed that he is doing business of repair of watches and other electronic goods with his father in a rented shop at Court Road, Moga. He has further testified that he wants to start his independent business in the shop under dispute. By referring to the cross-examination of Rajinder Kumar, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that landlords had sold some vacant land after purchase of the property in dispute, where even shops have been constructed, a fact which has been with-held from the Court. The present shop was purchased on 12.10.1990 whereas the petitioner-tenant was inducted in this shop in February 1995. The vacant land concededly was purchased in the year 1990-91. Some shops after construction were indeed rented out to different tenants. The present application, however, has been filed on 20.5.1997, after six years of this happening. It has, thus, been noticed that the landlord-respondents have not sold out or rented out CIVIL REVISION NO.5189 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: any shop in the recent past, which could be held against him. It would not be reasonable to expect from the landlords to disclose something which had happened 6/7 years prior to the filing of the present petition and non-mentioning of this fact would not mean that the attempt has been made to with-hold information. The plea of the petitioner that the present shop where respondent No.1 is working with his father is better located, would not lead his case much as it is for the landlord to see what is good or bad for him and such a choice can not be made by a tenant for the landlord. It is found that respondent No.1 is now 32 years old and would as such, have an urge to start his independent business, for which he would need this shop. It is also noticeable that the respondents have not sought the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop immediately after purchasing the same in the year 1990 but have waited for over a period of 7 years to make the present move. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, the Appellate Authority is justified in interfering with the finding recorded by the Rent Controller. In my considered opinion, the respondent-landlords have been able to establish their personal need for occupying the shop to start independent business by respondent No.1. The counsel representing the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the finding of fact recorded after appreciation of evidence, which may call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The present revision is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 09 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE