Civil Revision No.7300 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7300 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 5, 2011 Bharat Bhushan .....Petitioner v. Vinod Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 26.8.2011 passed by learned appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dismissing appeal filed by present petitioner against order dated 23.1.2010, passed by learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short `the Act') vide which petition for ejectment filed by respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the orders passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the present petitioner-tenant from the demised premise on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of bonafide use and occupation of the same. The petition was contested by present petitioner-tenant while admitting relations of landlord- Civil Revision No.7300 of 2011(O&M) -2- tenant and, however, plea has been taken that he does not have any bonafide necessity for use and occupation of the premises in dispute and the petition has been filed just to harass him. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned Rent Controller arrived at the conclusion that respondent-landlord has become totally blind of one eye and that earlier he was a driver and, however, after the accident he sustained injury and lost one eye and hence, he has become handicapped of driving and hence, he requires the shop in dispute for starting a small business to earn his livelihood. Appeal filed by present petitioner against the said judgment rendered by learned Rent Controller was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 26.8.2011. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that as per own averments of respondent-landlord in the petition, he was owner of another shop situated towards northern side of the shop in question, which was sold by him about four years ago in order to repay the loan. Further contends that however, no evidence except statement of respondent-landlord has been adduced on this point and hence, it is contended that the earlier shop was sold by respondent-landlord without any sufficient cause and, however, both the Courts have not gone into that aspect. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Shri Hans Raj and another v. Balraj Singh, 1978 PLR 448, wherein it was observed that it is mandatory for the landlord to specifically bring evidence on record to the effect that he was not in occupation of any other premises and that he had not vacated the same without sufficient cause. However, the present is not the case that respondent-landlord Civil Revision No.7300 of 2011(O&M) -3- was in occupation of another premises and the same was not vacated by him without any sufficient cause. Rather his plea was that he was owner of some other shop, which was in occupation of the tenant, which was sold by him to the said tenant only about four years ago in order to repay the loan. Hence, if the said plea is considered as a whole, it cannot be said that he was in possession of any premises, which was vacated by him without any sufficient cause. Moreover, no evidence was adduced by present petitioner- tenant in order to prove the assertion which is now being raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had vacated any other premises without any sufficient cause. Neither any such plea was taken in the written statement nor any such plea was taken before both the Courts below. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge