CR No.7973 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7973 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:31.01.2011. Ram Pal ...Petitioner Versus Gurmeet Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. The landlord filed an eviction petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1992 up to date, the tenant/petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised premises as it is lying locked for the last four months without any sufficient cause, it is required by the landlord for his personal necessity and the tenant/petitioner has diminished the value and utility of the demised premises by putting it under lock. The learned Rent Controller decided the issue of non-payment of rent against the landlord, but the issues with regard to ceased to occupy and bona fide necessity were both decided in favour of the landlord, whereas issue of impairment of value and utility of the demised premises was not addressed. In nutshell, the eviction petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 21.07.2000, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 20.07.2010. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the findings of the Courts below recorded on issues No.3 and 4, yet he has miserably failed to point out any illegality or perversity to compel this Court to disturb the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Insofar as the issue No.3 pertaining to ceased to occupy is concerned, the learned Rent Controller had recorded a finding CR No.7973 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** that the Local Commissioner, vide her report Ex.A7, has proved that she had visited the demised premises on three different occasions, but everytime it was found closed and Tarlochan Singh, Meter Reader (AW6) has also proved that there is hardly any electricity consumption in the demised premises. Similarly, issue No.4 has been decided on the statement of AW2 and AW4 who have categorically stated that they need the demised premises for the purpose of running their readymade garments business which is now being run by them on the pavement. Thus, the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that when the running of business on pavement is clearly established, it is very natural for any person to feel the need to run the business in the shop especially, if he himself owns a shop. In view thereof, the need of the landlord was found to be genuine and bona fide. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. January 31, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE