CIVIL REVISION NO.1430 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 24, 2008 Smt.Sarda and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Surinder Kaur ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against his order of eviction, the petitioners have filed this revision petition, impugning the order passed by District Judge, Gurdaspur. Respondent-landlady sought eviction of the petitioners from a portion of a residential house. The demised premises is purchased by the respondent-landlady from Sham Devi vide a registered sale deed dated 24.11.1987. The part of the house is under tenancy of the petitioners. The respondent landlady sought eviction of the petitioners on the grounds of arrears of rent from 1.12.1987 to 30.11.1995 and on the ground that they had effected CIVIL REVISION NO.1430 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: material alterations and changes, thus, materially impairing the value and utility of the building and further that the respondent required the demised premises for her own use and occupation. To justify the requirement of the house, it is disclosed that husband of the respondent was posted at Karnal and was living in Government accommodation. Her two sons and one daughter were unmarried and as such, they all wanted to reside in the demised premises. It is further pleaded that husband of the respondent also wished to settle at Gurdaspur after retirement. Necessary averment in regard to they having not occupied any residential house or building in an urban area of Gurdaspur and that they had not vacated any such building without sufficient case after commencement of the Act have been duly made in the petition. The petitioners contested the application filed by the respondent. They disputed the relationship of landlady and tenants between the parties. It is stated that Sham Devi is the original owner of the house, who has not executed any sale deed in favour of the respondent. The petitioners would also point out that the respondent had never given any notice to him after purchasing the house. As per the petitioners, they continued to pay the rent to the original owner and accordingly have pleaded that the sale is a sham transaction and the petition is actuated with malafide, there being no need of the premises for own use by the respondent. Mr.Sudeep Mahajan laid great emphasis before me and submitted that sale deed is without consideration and as such, there is no relationship landlady and tenants between them and the respondent. He has made detailed reference to the pleadings and CIVIL REVISION NO.1430 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: has also read before me the evidence of the petitioners to show that sale deed is totally sham and not established. The counsel made laborious effort and has placed on record numerous documents by way of miscellaneous application after filing of the revision petition. He would refer to number of receipts to show that Sham Devi used to endorse her signatures in Hindi whereas the sale deed was allegedly signed by Sham Devi in Urdu. He would question as to why would Sham Devi endorse signatures in Urdu on the sale deed, when 1977 onwards she has been signing receipts in Hindi. He would accordingly urge that there is a clear indication of a fraud and as such, would call for interference by this Court. At the very out-set the attention of the counsel was drawn to the finding recorded by the Appellate Court to the effect that the counsel representing the petitioners had not challenged the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue relating to relationship of landlady and tenant, as was decided by the Rent Controller. His attention was drawn to Para 14 of the impugned order in this regard. Mr.Mahajan then took up a plea that this was beyond the instructions to the counsel representing the petitioners before the Appellate Court and as such, would not bind the petitioners in any manner. If this has been a fact, this was bound to be so mentioned in the grounds of revision and in this context, the counsel was asked to show where such a plea has been raised in the grounds of revision filed before this Court. The counsel ofcourse was forthright in submitting that no such plea has been raised in the grounds of revision, except for saying that it was a case of fraud. The counsel has also referred to some of the judgments, one of which is reported as Ganpatbhai CIVIL REVISION NO.1430 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: Mahijibhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 280 (S.C.) to highlight what action is required to be taken where the Court sees a fraud being practiced on it. In this regard, he would also refer to Hamza Haji Vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (4) Civil Court Cases 407 (S.C.). All these aspects need not be gone into at this stage of the revision as this has not been so pleaded or urged. The petitioners had given up the issue concerning the relationship of landlady and tenants, which he is now wanting to reopen without having raised any such ground in the revision. The counsel also could not make submission if it would within the purview of the tenants to challenge the ownership of the landlord by challenging the sale deed in her favour in a rent petition filed by the landlady. Nothing much was submitted if such a plea could be maintained by the petitioner-tenants. I am, thus, not inclined to go into this aspect of the matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Faced with this situation, the counsel then urged that respondent-landlady was not able to establish her bonafide need for occupation of the demised premises. In this regard, it can be noticed that the respondent-landlady stepped into the witness box and deposed about her need, disclosing that her one son had already married and one daughter was yet to be married. She also disclosed that her husband was employed in the Police Department and was staying in Government accommodation and would now settle at Gurdaspur where she has no other residential house. While cross- examining the landlady, the petitioner did not choose to question her on these aspects. Not even a suggestion was put to her that she was not intending to settle at Gurdaspur or that her children had settled at CIVIL REVISION NO.1430 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 5 }: the respective places of their work etc. as is being made out. Accordingly, it can not be said that respondent-landlady has not been able to establish her bonafide need to occupy the said premises. The impugned order as such does not call for any interference and the revision is accordingly dismissed. April 24 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE