Civil Revision No. 7243 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 7243 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.11.2010 Bhushan …Petitioner Versus Gian Chand …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondent-Gian Chand filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”). It was pleaded therein that he had succeeded to 3/7th share out of the demised premises. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the father of respondent-Gian Chand at the rate of ` 40/- per month. The tenant has not paid the rent since August 1995. It is further submitted that the house, in which the landlord is residing, is in dilapidated condition and he needs the demised premises for his own use and occupation as the need of the family has increased. It is further stated that daughter of Gian Chand is married and she has been visiting him along with her husband and children. It is further stated that second son of Gian Chand is of marriageable age and he also requires a separate accommodation. It is specifically pleaded by Civil Revision No. 7243 of 2010 2 the landlord that the residential house, which is in his possession, is in deteriorated condition. The pleadings, made in the ejectment petition, were denied by the tenant. It was stated by the petitioner/tenant that the landlord had also succeeded to the property of his brother Durga Dass, who had executed the will in his favour. The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, after completion of the pleadings, had formulated the following issues, on 10.3.2003:- “...1. Whether there exists relationship between the parties? OPP 2. Whether the tender made by the respondent is legal and valid? OPR 3. Whether the petitioners require the demised premises for his use and occupation? OPP. 4. Whether the present application for ejectment is not maintainable? OPR 5. Whether the application is bad for non- joinder of necessary party i.e. Nathu Ram resident of VPO Hariana? OPR. 6. Whether the site plan is incorrect/ OPR. 7. Relief...” The tenant had paid the rent to the extent of 3/7th share and the Rent Controller, vide his order dated 10.12.2005, held that since the valid tender has been made, the tenant is not liable to be evicted for short tender. However, the Rent Controller found merit in the ground of personal necessity and ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant. Civil Revision No. 7243 of 2010 3 Aggrieved against the order dated 10.12.2005, passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, vide his order dated 12.6.2010, also upheld the ground of personal necessity and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the will dated 10.12.1996 (Annexure P3), made by Durga Dass, elder brother of respondent/landlord-Gian Chand and his death certificate dated 6.1.1999 (Annexure P4) to submit that the landlord had succeeded to the share of his brother Durga Dass and hence, the eviction petition ought to be dismissed as the landlord can occupy the property, to which he had succeeded on the basis of will (Annexure P3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the eviction petition was instituted on 25.11.2002, whereas Durga Dass had expired in the year 1998. Therefore, no specific averment has been made in the eviction petition qua the property to which the landlord had succeeded on the basis of will (Annexure P3) made by his brother Durga Dass. The landlord specifically stated in the eviction petition that he is owner of the property to the extent of 3/7th share. It is nowhere stated by the tenant that on the basis of will (Annexure P3) succession had concluded in favour of the landlord and he has occupied the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that visit of the married daughter would not prove the ground of personal necessity. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. Both the Courts below found that son of the landlord was of Civil Revision No. 7243 of 2010 4 marriageable age and he is required to be settled and the visit of his daughter is an added factor. Hence, no ground is made out to cause interference in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 8, 2010 “DK”