CR No.1548 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.1548 of 2009 Date of decision March 20, 2009 Krishan Lal ....... Petitioner Versus Anil Kumar and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The order of adjudication passed under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on grounds of personal necessity and dilapidated nature of the building that is unfit for human habitation is assailed before this Court in revision by the tenant. 2. The tiral Court considered the personal necessity of the landlord and referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 1999 Haryana Rent Reporter 57 that there shall be presumption of the requirement of the landlord if it be shown that the landlord is not in possession of any other building and he has not vacated any such building without reasonable cause then it shall be the tenant who shall establish that the so called personal necessity was only for obtaining eviction and to let it out for higher rent. The Courts below have concurrently found the bona fide needs of the landlord to have been adequately proved. CR No.1548 of 2009 2 3. Even as regards other contention regarding the age and condition of the building the landlord has placed on record a report of a building expert and his evidence to show that building was unsafe and the entire construction including the portion which is in the hands of the tenant was required to be demolished. The contention on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the tenanted premises itself was only less than 10 years of age but the building expert had taken (step) note of the old age of the building stating that it was unfit and unsafe. The tenant himself had placed evidence through another building expert to show that the building was safe and sound. The two Courts below have already held that the condition of the building was as such as it was not safe for human habitation. There is no scope for taking a different view in revision. The Courts have concurrently held both the grounds in favour of the landlord and rejected the contention of the tenant. Nothing survives for fresh consideration in revision and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Time for eviction is four months. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 20, 2009 archana