Civil Revision No. 6954 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6954 of 2009 Date of decision : 2.3.2010 Anil Kumar and another Petitioners Versus Rajinder Kishore Goyal Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners-tenants are in revision against the order dated 15.10.2009 vide which the learned Rent Controller, in allowance of a plea filed by respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), ordered the ejectment of the former from the tenanted premises. In the course of the impugned order, the learned Rent controller noticed that the respondent-landlord had been able to prove that he is an NRI who has owned the tenanted premises for the last more than 5 years and that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation for running business as a cloth merchant. In obtaining that view, the learned Rent Controller relied upon the Civil Revision No. 6954 of 2009 -2- *** own statement of the respondent-landlord which was completely supportive of the averments made in the course of the petition. He had also tendered into evidence Ex. A-3 and Ex. A-4 which are photostat copies of passport and inmmigration certificate respectively. It was further noticed by the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner-tenant had, besides entering the witness box as his own witness, examined only Kamaljit Singh as RW-2 in support of the plea taken by him and other part of his evidence had to be closed under the orders of the Rent Controller, vide order dated 20.11.2008 when no further evidence could be adduced inspite of numerous opportunities provided therefor. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the petition would deserve being negatived for want of bonafides inasmuch as the respondent-landlord is aged 80 years and he has no reasons to get back to India particularly when he has already lost his wife and his children are settled over there. It was also argued that the respondent-landlord having already sold off his house at Sangrur, there is no understandable reason for him to start cloth business all over again when he has no place to use as residence. Insofar as the averred aged factor is concerned, I do not find it to be an impediment on the part of the respondent-landlord in starting business. As correctly observed by the learned Rent Controller there are instances when people have continued to be competently functional even at that age. That factor, by itself, does Civil Revision No. 6954 of 2009 -3- *** not impede the plea raised by the respondent-landlord in applying for the vacation of tenanted premises which are under the occupation of the petitioner-tenant. Insofar as the death of wife of respondent-landlord is concerned, that too does not disable him from raising the claim. Infact, it would furnish a valid ground to the respondent-landlord to come over to his home land and get busy in order to get over the loss of his wife. The plea shall stand negatived accordingly. There is a precise averment made in the course of the petition that the respondent-landlord before his shifting overseas, had been running cloth business. There is no appropriate rebuttal thereof. It cannot, thus, be said with any justification that the respondent-landlord is trying to venture into a fresh business for which he has no experience to his credit. In fact, the obtaining of any previous experience would be foreign to the appreciation of evidence in the context. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 02, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE