CR No.2971 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.2971 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.05.2011 District Commander, Punjab, Home Guards, Kapurthala and others . . .Petitioners Versus Ramgarhia Educational Council, Phagwara . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Ram Lal Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) The tenant is in revision against order of the Courts below passed on application filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) by the landlord for seeking eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The landlord has shown its requirement for using the demised premises for imparting education. Some portion of the building was even found to be unfit and unsafe but it has been observed that it would be re-constructed by the landlord and would be used by it for starting new courses. This fact has been proved by AW2-Bharpur Singh Bhogal, Chairman of Ramgarhia Educational Council. Although the petitioners have assailed the impugned orders by way of this revision petition but except for alleging that the building has not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation nothing has been mentioned in the ground of revision nor has been urged before this Court whereas it has been proved on record with cogent evidence that it has become unfit and unsafe. In this regard, the finding recorded by learned Appellate Court is reproduced as under: - CR No.2971 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - “Further corroborated from the testimony of AW3 Davinder Singh, Photographer, who has also seen this building and has taken the photographs Ex.A5 to Ex.A14 showing that some of the rooms have fallen and the entire remaining building is in dilapidated conditions. AW4 Tilak Raj Verma, Expert, has inspected the building in dispute, and has submitted his report Ex.A26 and has prepared the site plan Ex.A27 corroborating the above said facts. So, there is no doubt left that the premises, in dispute, has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.” In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 05, 2011 JUDGE Vivek