CM No.15227-CII of 2011 and CR No.3804 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.15227-CII of 2011 and CR No.3804 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.7.2011 Gurdip Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Surjit Kaur and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders dated 17.12.2009 and 30.4.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana and Appellate Authority, Ludhiana respectively whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected and has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the respondent- landlord within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the petitioner was ordered to be evicted on the ground of bona fide need of the respondent-landlord/his grandson. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that bona fide need of the respondent-landlord is not proved from the record. Rather the petitioner-tenant has placed on record sufficient material to establish the fact that there was sufficient vacant accommodation with the respondent-landlord for the need of his grandson as alleged. It may be relevant to mention that along with this revision CM No.15227-CII of 2011 and CR No.3804 of 2011 2 petition, the petitioner has also moved an application to lead additional evidence by way of placing documents Annexures P-4 to P-6 on record of this revision petition. Admittedly, the aforesaid documents have come into existence after passing of the ejectment order by the Rent Controller. These documents were not placed before the Appellate Authority for consideration. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be interfered with on account of non- consideration of the aforesaid documents. Even otherwise the documents Annexures P-4 to P-6, which pertains to some settlement regarding other properties of the landlord, does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner. Thus, the application being without any merit is rejected. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that bona fide need of the respondent- landlord is established. Even otherwise, it is well settled that even if an alternative accommodation is available, it is for the landlord to decide as to how and in what manner he should fulfil his requirement. I am fortified in my aforesaid view by a judgment of this Court in Yashpal Juneja v. Satish Kumar Sandooja 2009 (1) RCR 420. Dismissed. July 4, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE