CR No.6974 of 2006 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6974 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.01.2011 Kundan Lal . . .Petitioner Versus Uma Kant and others . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.N. Sarup, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) The tenant is in revision. The learned Rent Controller had evicted the tenant on the twin grounds; i) the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and ii) the landlord requires the demised premises for his personal necessity. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding on the first point about the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. However, the other ground of personal necessity was upheld. Only the tenant has come in revision against the order of the learned Appellate Authority and no revision is preferred at the instance of the landlord. In this case, notice of motion was issued on 28.12.2006 and dispossession of the petitioner/tenant was stayed. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner had filed two miscellaneous applications, i.e. CM No.8878-CII of 2008 for bringing on record material facts and placing on record Annexures P-1 to P-4 and CM No.12795-CII of 2009 for restraining the respondent/landlord from interfering in possession and also to restore the condition of the demised premises. In these applications, the respondent/landlord had filed reply through CM No.12864-CII of 2010 and placed certain photographs on record showing the existing position of the demised premises. While disposing of the application, i.e. CM No.12795- CII of 2009, this Court had passed the following order on 17.05.2010: - - 1- CR No.6974 of 2006 (O&M) “CM No.12864-CII of 2008 Allowed. Replies to the applications dated 04.05.2008 and 22.05.2009 are taken on record. CR No.6974 of 2006 The merits of the case apart, the present case is the revelatory of certain facts. A plea filed by the respondent-landlord, for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises, came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller. The plea for ejectment was based upon an averment of personal necessity and the state of building as being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Both the counts were upheld. The learned Appellate Authority, however, reversed the finding on the latter count. The finding, on the point of personal necessity, was nonetheless upheld. The present revision petition was filed on 27.12.2006. During the pendency thereof, the petitioner- tenant filed CM No.8878-CII of 2008 to place on record Annexures P-1 to P-4. The petitioner- tenant has filed yet another CM No.12795-CII of 2009, vide which the restraint of the respondent- landlord from interfering in the possession of the tenanted premises by the petitioner-tenant was sought. Also sought was the restraint of the respondent-landlord from causing damage to the tenanted premises and for issuance of a direction to the latter to restore the premises to its original condition. The reply to that application was filed on 13.05.2010. The precise plea raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant presently is that the respondent- landlord had damaged the premises to such an extent that the premises have ceased to be habitable/useable for any purpose. Learned - 2- CR No.6974 of 2006 (O&M) counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent- landlord, denies the averment. The learned counsel state that in view of the conflicting factual stances, it would be appropriate to determine whether there is any validity in the stance offered by the petitioner or the resistance offered by the respondent. In the circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala shall hold an inquiry in the context and furnish a report within 15 days from today. Both the parties shall appear before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala on 19.05.2010. In order to enable the officer to appreciate what the controversy is about, copies of the CMs and the replies thereto shall be forwarded. A copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court. List on 30.06.2010.” Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala who had submitted his report dated 28.07.2010, in which it was concluded that “the petitioner/tenant has failed to prove to the preponderance of probability that respondent/landlord had damaged the premises to such an extent that the premises have ceased to be habitable/useable for any purpose”. Be that as it may, from the photographs placed on record with the reply of the respondent/landlord, the demised premises is not at all habitable/useable for the purpose of running the school. Insofar as the question of personal necessity is concerned, both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding in favour of the respondent/landlord, who is a retired Headmaster and had planned to start a coaching centre in the demised premises, which was earlier being run as a school. - 3- CR No.6974 of 2006 (O&M) In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the demised premises is no more in actual possession of the petitioner/tenant and the same is required by the respondent/landlord for the purpose of running his own coaching centre, which he can do by refurbishing/reconstructing it. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) January 14, 2011 JUDGE Vinod* - 4-