Civil Revision No.5259 of 2007 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 06, 2008 Kuldeep Kumar & another ...Petitioners VERSUS Paramjit Singh & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.L.Verma, Advocate and Mr.Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this revision petition to impugn the order of their eviction passed by Rent Controller, Rupnagar and up-held by the Appellate Authority. Respondents Paramjit Singh and Gurpal Kaur, son and Civil Revision No.5259 of 2007 (O&M) : 2 : mother, had filed this petition being the landlords of the property in question. They claimed ownership of the demised property on the basis of sale deed 11.4.2000 executed by one Gurbachan Singh. The respondents had sought ejectment of the petitioners from the premises on the ground of personal necessity. The plea is that they require the property for running a business of Institute of Computer Training as Paramjit Singh has completed an advance diploma in Software. The petitioners filed a reply to this eviction petition. They raised various preliminary objections. They also challenged the sale deed in favour of the respondents by Gurbachan Singh, who is none other than grand-father of Paramjit Singh and father-in-law of Gurpal Kaur. Having regard to the pleas raised by the parties, they went to trial on various issues. The Rent Controller found that the respondents were able to prove the ground of personal necessity and accordingly directed the eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises. The Appellate Court has also gone against the petitioners and that is how they have filed the present revision. Mr.Arun Bansal appearing for the petitioners has made submission to urge that sale deed in favour of the respondents was a sham transaction and only resorted to seek eviction of the petitioners. He would also urge that the court was not justified in ignoring the subsequent event, which would have effected the ground of personal necessity as projected by the respondents. In this regard, he would refer to the fact that Paramjit Singh has settled in Italy and as such the ground of personal necessity for opening a computer Civil Revision No.5259 of 2007 (O&M) : 3 : centre would certainly get effected because of this subsequent development. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is noticed that an application was moved by the petitioners for amending the rent petition at the appellate stage to bring on record this subsequent event regarding Paramjit Singh having gone abroad and settled in Italy. This prayer of the petitioners was declined against which they filed a revision petition before this court. The said revision petition was, however, dismissed and the order of the court was up-held. In short, the prayer of the petitioners to bring on record this subsequent event was rejected. Despite this position, the counsel still insisted that court was bound to take into consideration that subsequent event while deciding the main petition as the earlier order passed rejecting the prayer of the petitioners could not act as res judicata in the same proceedings. I have not been able to understand this line or reasoning advanced by the counsel for the petitioners. No doubt, the subsequent events can be taken into consideration, but it has been consistently held that such events are required to be brought on record promptly and in a manner as permissible under law. The petitioners did make an attempt to bring this subsequent event on record, but their prayer in this regard was declined. It would be too much to urge that though the prayer for bringing on record the subsequent event was declined, yet it was required to be taken into consideration. This line of reasoning cannot be accepted by any Civil Revision No.5259 of 2007 (O&M) : 4 : logic or law. This subsequent event, as such, cannot be taken into consideration and has rightly been ignored. The second limb of argument raised by the counsel or the petitioners that the sale was only to ensure eviction can also not be accepted. It is seen that Gurbachan Singh had challenged the sale deed in favour of the respondents by filing a civil suit. The validity of the sale deed, however, was up-held. Thereafter, Gurbachan Singh did not pursue his further remedy. He had also filed an earlier ejectment petition against the petitioners, which had also resulted in dismissal of the same without adjudication about the rights of the parties. In this view of the matter, the objection raised by the counsel for the petitioners in regard to the genuineness of the sale also cannot be accepted. There is accordingly no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 06, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE