Civil Revision No. 3667 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3667 of 2003 Date of decision : 19.3.2010 Om Parkash ....Petitioner Versus Bahadur Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-landlord had filed a plea, for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises, on an averment that he requires the same premises for personal bonafide necessity. The plea came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 25.7.2007. However, in appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding and dismissed the petition by observing that the statutory averments in terms of provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) had not been made in the course of the petition. To be exact, the finding was that the petitioner-landlord had not made an averment in the course of the petition that he was not in occupation of any other residential premises in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area. On that legal premise, the plea raised by the petitioner- landlord was negatived. The petitioner-landlord is in revision against it. Civil Revision No. 3667 of 2003 -2- The foundational premise, upon which the finding of the learned Appellate Authority is based, has been found to be factually inaccurate. It may be noticed, in the context, that the following averment had been made by the petitioner-landlord in the course of clause 3 (f) of the petition:- “f) That the petitioner requires the shop in question for his personal occupation. The petitioner is a teacher employed in Government School. His date of birth is 26.01.1944 and he is to retire from his service on 31.01.2002. The period of retirement is fast approaching. Therefore, after retirement he wants to occupy the building in question for carrying on the business of sale of books and satisfactory. He is not having any other building in the urban area of Gannaur and has not vacated any such building after the commencement of Act No.3 of 1949.” It would be evident from a perusal of the above quoted pleadings made by the petitioner/landlord that the learned Appellate Authority proceeded on a factual incorrect premise. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, it is evident from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner-landlord retired from Government job on 31.3.2002 and an averment to that effect appears in para 3 (f) of the petition, That plea was reiterated by the petitioner- landlord. There is also an averment, in the course thereof, that his date of birth is 26.1.1944. Though that part of pleadings was denied in the course of corresponding para of the written statement, the averred date of birth of the petitioner is proved by Ex. A/2, which is an attested copy of the matriculation certificate. The fact that the petitioner-landlord retired from Government job on the averred date is also proved by the testimony on Civil Revision No. 3667 of 2003 -3- oath of PW-3 Suresh Kumar, an official from the office of S.D.E.O., Ganaur, who made a record-based statement to that effect. His credit could not be shaken or impeached in the course of cross-examination. The petitioner-landlord stepped into the witness box, as his own witness, as PW-2 and gave testimony to the above effect. It is in his testimony that he had retired from Government job on the averred date and that he requires the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation. He also testified the other statutory requirements (on oath). There is nothing in the course of the cross-examination on the basis whereof it may be argued that his credit could be impeached or shaken at all. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 28.2.2003 granted by the learned Appellate Authority shall stand set aside; while the order dated 25.7.2002 granted by the learned Rent Controller shall stand restored. The respondents-tenants shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE