CR No.4419 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4419 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:30.05.2011. Smt. Lata @ Prem Lata ...Petitioner Versus Usha Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which she has been evicted from the demised premises, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity. In brief, the landlords have alleged that the demised premises was let out @ `40/- per month by their father Babu Lal who was the owner of the demised premises, whereas the tenant has claimed her ownership over the demised premises. The landlords produced sale deed dated 15.04.1939 to prove the ownership of their father, but despite availing seven opportunities, no evidence was brought by the tenant and her evidence was closed by the order of the Court. On the appreciation of evidence led by the landlords and in the absence of cross-examination that Babu Lal is not the owner, the Courts below have held that the demised premises was owned by Babu Lal which was inherited by the present landlords as owners and the case set up by the tenant that she has become the owner has not been accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken before the Courts below, but in the absence of any evidence led by the tenant CR No.4419 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - and in the face of the sale deed produced by the landlords of the demised premises in favour of their father, I do not find any reason to disturb the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. In view of the above, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit. No costs. May 30, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE