CR No.2501 of 2011 (O&M) ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2501 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.05.2011. Krishan Lal . . .Petitioner Versus Paras Ram and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J (Oral) CM Nos.12807-08-CII of 2011 Applications are allowed as prayed for. CR No.2501 of 2011 (O&M) The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which he has been asked to vacate the demised premises let out to him for running a shop. The stand taken by the tenant in the written statement was that the demised premises was let out for the purpose of residence from the very beginning. He has relied upon a rent deed (Ex.P1) dated 13.10.1951. Both the Courts below, on the basis of the evidence available on record, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the demised premises was let out as a shop and not for residence. The tenant has filed CM No.10013- CII of 2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for leading additional evidence by producing on record the true translated copy of rent note dated 13.10.1951 which is basically in Urdu. The said document, on translation, reads that it was a one story house which was let out by the landlord to the tenant, whereas learned counsel for the landlord has filed CM No.12808-CII of 2011 to place on record English translation of rent note which reads that it was a one story pucca shop which was let out to the tenant. - 1 - CR No.2501 of 2011 (O&M) ***** Since both the parties have given different translation of the same rent note dated 13.10.1951 before this Court, therefore, it was found appropriate to call for the Translator of this Court who has read the Rent Note in Urdu in open Court that the demised premises is a shop. In view thereof, the basic stand taken by the tenant that there was no change of user as the demised premises was a house falls to the ground and hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition to disturb the orders of the Courts below wherein a concurrent finding has been recorded and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) May 30, 2011 Judge vinod* - 2 -