IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2915 of 2005 Date of decision: December 18, 2008 Dinesh Kumar ... Appellant Versus Atam Parkash & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) In this case notice of motion was issued on 08.08.2005 with the following observations: “The landlord intends to increase the rate of rent, as it has nowhere been stated that he needs this shop for his personal use. Learned counsel for the appellant states that his client is ready to pay market rent as may be ordered after negotiations with the respondents.” Despite lapse of 3½ years, the appellant has not been able to persuade the respondents to increase the rent and let him remain as a tenant of the shop in dispute. On merits both the Courts below have found that the shop in dispute was newly constructed. Learned counsel for the RSA No.2915 of 2005 -2- appellant has sought to argue that his client had led evidence to show that in fact the building was old construction and clever device was used by the respondents for the shop in dispute. In my opinion, these findings of fact cannot be held to be perverse or not arising from the record. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. December 18, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE