Civil Revision No.885 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.885 of 2005 Date of decision 20.1.2009 Naresh Kumar .....Appellant versus Om Parkash .....Respondent Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B. R. Vohra, Advocate, for the respondent. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The landlord's application for eviction was made on the basis of personal requirement for setting up business. It was the contention of the landlord that the property was necessary for setting up business for his son who was unemployed. It was brought out in evidence by the tenant that his son was employed as LIC agent and was not unemployed as contended by the landlord. The Rent Controller reasoned that even if he was employed as a LIC Agent but he was not in a permanent occupation, it could not be stated that such a person cannot be associated in business. 2. The appellate authority affirmed the decision and did not enter into any fresh line of reasoning and adopted the same. 3. The tenant assails the findings essentially on the ground that the appellate authority has not properly considered the matter but he has merely affirmed the decision by repeating the passage directing eviction. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the Rent Controller had ruled that the tenant did not prove that the landlord's son had Civil Revision No.885 of 2005 -2- been employed in some other business and further contended that the landlord had other properties. That lacuna was sought to be filled up by moving an application under Order 41 Rule 27 for adducing additional evidence. The grievance of the counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the proof that was lacking at the Rent Controller ought to have been permitted to be adduced as additional evidence before adjudicating on the rights of the parties. The refusal of permission to adduce additional evidence is for reason that no proper justification had been given for the failure of the tenant to produce the documents even at the trial and consequently the legal parameters that were required to be established for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 had not been fulfilled. 4. The appellate authority has affirmed well-reasoned findings of the Rent Controller and the bonafides of the need of the landlord as found expressed through the concurrent findings suffer from no infirmity for intervention in revision. 5. Therefore revision petition is dismissed.. 6. It is pleaded on behalf of the revision petitioner that he has been doing his business since 1970 and he is wholly dependent on his business and required sometime to locate himself to some other property. Request is acceded and time for eviction is granted for six months. 20.1.2009 ( K. KANNAN ) A. Kaundal JUDGE