C.R. No.6762 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6762 of 2008 Date of Decision : 13.08.2009 M/s Guru Ram Dass Reit Bajri Supply Co.& Anr. .....Petitioners versus Harcharan Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, for Mr.Deepak Nayar, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenants against the orders dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, vide which they have been ordered to be ejected from the demised premises comprising one shop bearing No.1945/14-16, Black Plate M.C. Opposite Essma Woolen Mills, G.T.Road, Putligarh, Amritsar, as well as dated 24.5.2008 dismissing the petitioners' appeal against the aforesaid eviction order. The respondent-landlord sought the petitioners' eviction, inter- alia, on the ground that the demised premises is required by him for his personal use and occupation as one of his son is sitting idle and there is no C.R. No.6762 of 2008 2 other commercial shop/property in their possession where he could start his own business. In support of the aforesaid ground, the respondent-landlord himself appeared in the witness box as AW-2 and examined his son Harpreet Singh as AW-3 and also examined Rohit Gupta, Draftsman as AW-1. The landlord deposed that his son was earlier doing some business outside the State of Punjab, but now he has returned to Amritsar to settle down permanently and requires the demised premises to start his own business. No evidence, whatsoever, has been led by the petitioners to show that there is any other premises, shop/properties available with the landlord or his son to start his business. Similarly, the petitioners could not refute the claim of the landlord that his son has returned to Amritsar to settle there permanently. Further, it has been proved that the landlord's son has got some experience in the business and, thus, the claim put forth by the landlord is totally bonafide in nature. No meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the petitioners against the concurrent finding of fact returned by the courts below. No case of misreading of evidence or over- looking the same has also been made out. In these circumstances, no case for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, is made out. Dismissed. 13-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE