CR No.466 of 2007 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.466 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 16.11.2009 **** M/s. Hukam Chand Kamal Kumar & Others . . . . Petitioners VS. Mohan Lal . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Goraya, Advocate for the respondent ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the tenants who have been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Amritsar vide order dated 22.11.2005, which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide its judgement dated 22.11.2006. The eviction orders have been passed on two counts i.e. (i) that the petitioners have ceased to occupy the demised premises; and (ii) that the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. (2). The demised building is comprising a Baithak on the First Floor of Shop No.458/6 situated at Bagh Jhanda Singh, CR No.466 of 2007 - 2 - Amritsar. The petitioner-tenant No.1 was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.20/-. (3). The respondent was also a tenant in a portion of the demised building which was subsequently purchased by him. Thereafter, he filed the present eviction petition out of which, as noticed above, two grounds survived resulting into the impugned eviction orders. (4). Counsel for the petitioner-tenants vehemently urged that since the respondent-landlord himself is continuing his business on the Ground Floor of the demised premises, the First Floor thereof which is under the occupation of the petitioner-tenants, cannot be said to have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As regards the Second Floor of the demised premises, he argued that the nature of work carried out by the petitioners did not require any electric connection, water supply or telephone facilities etc. (5). Having heard counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the records, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Even without going into the second plea, namely, that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, suffice it to say that both the courts have concurrently held that the petitioners have ceased to occupy the demised premises since the year 1992. While arriving at the said conclusion, both the Courts below have taken note of the fact that the electric connection and the telephone facilities which were being earlier availed by the petitioners in the demised premises have since been CR No.466 of 2007 - 3 - disconnected and even their sale tax number has also been cancelled. No evidence, whatsoever, has been produced that any business activity has ever been carried out in the demised premises since the year 1992. Except the oral testimony of one of the tenants, no other evidence has been led by the petitioners. (6). In these circumstances, the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below, on appreciation and reappraisal of the evidence on record, wants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (7). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 16.11.2009 vishal shonkar