Civil Revision No.5501 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5501 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 03 .02.2009 Jawahar Singh .............. Petitioner Vs. Smt. Saroj Gosain .............Respondent Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. 1. The landlord's application for ejectment of the tenant was ordered on the ground of personal requirement both by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. The tenant faced the order of eviction is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. While adverting to the need of the landlord, the Rent Controller considered the fact that her husband was a heart patient and he was not able to take up any difficult jobs and that the property was necessary for setting up a small booth for business of her husband. It was the contention of the landlord that her husband had a factory which was closed by the Pollution Department and the commencement of business at the petition mentioned premises was the only viable occupation. The Appellate Authority confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller and it also referred to the evidence of the husband-PW2 who has spoken about the need of the premises for establishing his business. Adverting to provisions of law and Civil Revision No.5501 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the authorities, the Appellate Authority reasoned that it was not for the tenant to state that they were old and they were not capable of doing any profitable business. The bona fides of the requirement was also decided on the contention of the tenant that the landlord was persistent in seeking for enhancement of rents and the desire of the landlord was only to somehow obtain eviction and lease out the property for higher rent. This was shown as possible cause by pointing out that in the notice issued by the landlord prior to the institution of the petition, the landlord had not set out requirement of the premises for personal occupation and it was trotted out for the first time only at the time of filing of the petition. The Appellate Authority rejected the said contention also by stating that there was no statutory requirement for issuance of notice spelling out the requirement of the landlord prior to filing of the petition. 3. The bona fides of the requirements to the landlord is essentially a matter of inference from the material facts placed. Although there is weight in the argument that the absence of reference to the personal requirement in the lawyer's notice is a relevant consideration, it cannot be decisive if there are other materials to show that there was a need for the landlord for his or her own occupation. The need was spelt out by the examination of both the husband and wife. Both the authorities below have considered the issue of requirement from the nature of evidence adduced on the side of the landlord. There is no material irregularity or impropriety in the orders to make any intervention in revision. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Time for eviction two months. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 03, 2009 Pankaj*