Civil Revision No. 3480 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3480 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.9.2010 Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus Smt. Kamlesh Kumari …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved against the orders dated 29.9.2009 (Annexure P5), passed by the Rent Controller, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri and dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure P7), passed by the Appellate Authority, Yamunanagar, whereby they had dismissed the application under Section 14 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Ac, 1973, as well as under Section 11 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the petitioner/tenant. It was pleaded in the application that the ejectment petition has been filed by the respondent/landlady on the ground of personal necessity claiming that her husband has retired from the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited on 28.2.2009, on attaining the age of Civil Revision No. 3480 of 2010 2 superannuation and the demised shop is required for his personal use as he intended to start the business of electrical goods and repair shop therein. The tenant has pleaded that earlier, the landlady has filed the eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity of her son, which was accepted by the Rent Controller on 12.1.2007 and in the appeal filed, he had made a statement that he would vacate the demised premises, within a period of one month, after the arrival of her son, who has settled abroad. It is stated that once the earlier order of eviction was standing, second eviction petition, pleading personal necessity of the husband of the landlady was not maintainable. This application was declined by both the Courts below. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that during the evidence, changed circumstances can always be brought to the knowledge of the Court. Needless to say that the Court, while appreciating those facts, will also take into consideration the orders passed in the earlier eviction petition by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. It is further clarified that any observation made by this Court or by both the Courts below, in the impugned orders dated 29.9.2009 (Annexure P5) and dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure P7), shall have no bearing on the final outcome. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 24, 2010 “DK”