Civil Revision No. 2669 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2661 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.4.2010 Dharamvir Thukral ...Petitioner Versus Umesh Kumar Madhok ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner herein filed a plea for being allowed to adduce additional evidence to prove an averment that the respondent-landlord has no personal bonafide necessity inasmuch as he has leased out a portion (of another premises owned by him) to M/s Kartik Earth Movers. In the course of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller noticed that the issues in this case had been framed on 29.4.2005 and sufficient opportunities were afforded to both the parties to adduce their evidence. The evidence of the respondent was closed (by the Court) vide order dated 11.12.2009 after he failed to conclude his evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities. It is further noticed that the plea for amendment came to be filed after the close of evidence. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that since the respondents has conceded having parted with Civil Revision No. 2669 of 2010 -2- **** possession in favour of M/s Kartik Earth Movers, it would justify the drawal of an inference that the accommodation available with the respondent is adequate in character. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon the fact that respondent had conceded having handed over the possession of the indicated portion to his friend Mr. Mukesh. The last indicated item of grievance is misconceived. A copy of the reply filed by the respondent (petitioner herein) has been placed on reocord. It categorically indicates that the respondent herein had only “permitted his friend Mr. Mukesh to keep his machines in the open area temporarily for a period of three four months only and after that he would take away the same”. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the above quoted portion of the reply, that the only admission made by the respondent was with regard to the fact that he had given over some area temporarily for a period of 3-4 months. The mere allowance of the request for placing machines in the open area adjacent to the tenanted premises would not subject the respondent-tenant to having a charge of having surplus area in his possession. This fact can, by itself outweigh the projected personal bonafide need. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. April 23, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge