CR No. 3438 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 3438 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.10.2010 Kamal Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus Dr. Ramesh Mehta ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan. Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J. Tenant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), challenging the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, as well as the judgement dated 12.1.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide need was allowed and the tenant was directed to be evicted therefrom. Brief facts of the present case are that the landlord has filed eviction petition against the tenant on the ground that at present residence of CR No. 3438 of 2010 2 the landlord at Model Town, is quite away from his clinic and the same became insufficient as per the increasing need and necessity of the family members. It has further been averred by the landlord that now his wife remains ill and they have no relatives to see her and the landlord wants to shift to the premises in question, which is very close to the clinic. Tenant has refuted the claim of the landlord by filing written statement. The Rent Controller has allowed the petition vide impugned judgement dated 5.2.2009 on the ground of genuine and bonafide need of the landlord. The order passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide judgement dated 12.1.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Appellate Authority has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar Vs. Traders and Agencies, reported in 1996(5) SCC 344, Prative Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, 1987(2) RCR 580, Raghuvendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery Co., 2000(1) SCC 679 as well as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co., 1998(2) RCR 533. Having perused the record and the judgements relied upon by the Appellate Authority, I find that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and tenant cannot dictate any term to the landlord to accommodate with his family in accommodation available in the hands of the landlord. I am of the view that the landlord has every right to live/stay comfortably as per his requirement. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any illegality or perversity in the judgement passed by CR No. 3438 of 2010 3 the Courts below. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the Act should not ordinarily be invoked to disturb the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below, if no manifest or jurisdictional error is found in the judgements passed by the Courts below. In view of the above, petition is dismissed. However, two months’ time is granted to the tenant to hand over vacant, peaceful physical possession of the premises in question to the landlord. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 07.10.2010 sk.