C.R. No. 791 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 791 of 2009 Date of decision February 19, 2009 Raj Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus Sunita Devi and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The order of eviction sought for by the landlord for the personal requirement of establishing the business for his son was issued by the Appellate Authority in reversal of the decision of the Rent Controller. The tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The property admittedly was taken on rent by the tenant from one Javantry Devi and after her death, her widowed daughter- in-law who was the petitioner before the Rent Controller was accepted as a landlord by the tenant when he started paying rent to her. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that she was not the only legal heir and the extent of entitlement of the property from her mother-in- law had not been specifically disclosed in the petition. It was his further contention that the landlord owned other properties also and he had filed photographs in support of his contention. The Rent Controller has accepted the contention of the tenant and stated that the landlord had not come to the Court with clean hands and the petition had been filed only in C.R. No. 791 of 2009 2 the capacity as a member of the joint family and could not made an application for eviction as though the property belonged to her. The Appellate Court pointed out to the fact and took a different line of reasoning that once the tenant had accepted the daughter-in-law as his landlord nothing further remained for him to state that there were other legal heirs or the landlord herself had not set out the exact share which belonged to her. 3. The dispute raised by the tenant that the landlord owned other properties and there were photographs for the same is also without substance. The Appellate Court rejected such an argument by stating that the photographs could not prove the existence of other shops and even the photographs which had been tendered without negatives could not be accepted. The attempt by the tenant to show that yet another property was in the hands of another son of the landlord was considered by the Appellate Authority by reasoning that if the landlord herself was not in occupation of any other building and if it was in the hands of another son, nothing could stop the landlord from requiring the premises for the business of another son who was made as a party as second petitioner before the Rent Controller. The decision of the Appellate Authority accords with evidence and law and there is no ground for interference in revision. The Civil revision is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the tenant has been doing business for quite a number of years and he would require some time to relocate himself from the property. The time of eviction is granted four months from the date of the order. The tenant shall continue to pay rent without default within first five days of every succeeding calendar month and if there is any default on his part the time C.R. No. 791 of 2009 3 granted shall abate and the order of eviction shall fall execution forthwith. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 19 , 2009 archana