cr no.7212 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7212 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.12.2009 **** Prem Parkash . . . . Petitioner VS. Jagmohan Bhutani . . . . 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. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) 1. This revision petition is preferred by the tenant against the eviction order dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon vide the impugned judgement dated 27.10.2009. 2. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, inter alia, on the ground that the demised premises which is part of H.No.414/6 situated near Bank of India, Old Railway Road, Jacobpur, Tehsil & District Gurgaon is required by him for his personal use and occupation as well as for the use of his son, namely, Ritesh Bhutani who has done some Diploma Course in Repair of Refrigerator and Air Conditioner from Rural Development and Self Employment Training Institute in July, 2001 and cr no.7212 of 2009.doc - 2 - who, though employed in some private factory, was not getting handsome salary. 3. While deciding Issue No.1, the Rent Controller, Gurgaon has held that the son of the respondent-landlord (Ritesh Bhutani) has done the Diploma Course vide Certificate (Ex.P2) for the Repair of Fridge and Air Conditioner from the Rural Development and Self-Employment Training Institute. The respondent-landlord has also retired from service and wants to help his son in the start of their own business in the demised premises. The other son of the landlord is already running a shop of photography. 4. The only plea taken by the petitioner-tenant to oppose the landlord’s prayer was that there were two more shops owned by the landlord which he had sold recently. The said plea has been turned down by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon after observing that both the shops were sold by him 4-5 years back and that too to the tenants who were already occupying those shops. The respondent-landlord’s plea that he was in need of money and had sold the shops to the tenants was accepted and, the consequential eviction order passed. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, reiterating the findings returned by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon. The Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, has relied upon the admission made by the petitioner-tenant in his cross- examination that the landlord requires the demised premises for the use of his son as well as doing his own business. The Appellate Authority, Gurgaon has referred to the evidence on record in extenso to support its conclusions. cr no.7212 of 2009.doc - 3 - 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. It could not be disputed that the respondent-landlord is a retiree and his son possesses some diploma course in repairing Refrigerators and Air conditioners etc. 7. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the respondent that he needs the demised premises for the start of business by his son and he himself would also assist his son in starting his business, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 07.12.2009 vishal shonkar