Civil Revision No.1221 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1221 of 2008 Date of decision: March 10, 2008. Mool Chand ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Kamlesh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) 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: Shri Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt. whereby the petitioner – tenant's eviction from the demised premises has been ordered on the ground that the same is bona fidely required by the respondent – landlord for his personal necessity, as well as against the judgment dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge – cum- Appellate Authority (Fast Track Court), Ambala dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above stated order of eviction. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent – landlord in the subject premises comprising two rooms of House No.914, First Floor, Ohri Civil Revision No.1221 of 2008 -: 2 :- Chaudhary Ki Mandi, Ambala Sadar at the monthly rent of Rs.75/-. The respondent filed an eviction petition alleging, inter-alia, that (i) the petitioner has changed the user of the residential premises for commercial purposes, namely, the business of book binding; (ii) the premises is required by the respondent for his bona fide personal necessity. The courts below have turned down the first plea taken by the respondent – landlord, however, his second plea regarding personal necessity, has been accepted. While holding that the subject premises is required by the respondent for his own bona fide use and occupation, the courts below have taken notice of the fact that the respondent – landlord and his family are residing at the ground floor of the house comprising two rooms, toilet, bath room and one room on the second floor, whereas the remaining portion, i.e., two rooms on the first floor of the house is occupied by the petitioner – tenant. Admittedly, the family of the respondent – landlord includes his widow (since he died during the pendency of the eviction petition), and his four sons, all of whom were/are of marriageable age. In fact, two of the sons have got married during the pendency of the eviction petition. The other two sons are also of marriageable age and would require separate rooms/space soon after their marriage. These facts have not been controverted by the petitioner – tenant who resides in the same premises. In these circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the courts below that the premises consisting of two rooms occupied by the petitioner – tenant is required by the landlord for his bona-fide personal necessity, being a concurrent finding of fact based upon facts, does not call for any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Civil Revision No.1221 of 2008 -: 3 :- Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, has raised two- fold contentions. Firstly, he submits that another house, No.912, in the same locality is also owned by the respondent – landlord and during the pendency of the present eviction proceedings, an eviction order in respect thereof has been passed by the Rent Controller. On a query, it is not disputed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the above stated ejectment order has been passed on the ground of non-payment of rent and an appeal against the same is still pending. In other words, house No.912 has yet not been vacated and is not in physical possession of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then contended that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has not been decided by a competent Appellate Authority as provided under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. Firstly, no such objection was taken by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this plea which essentially requires factual support for determination. Still, it is not in dispute that under the aforesaid provision, all the Additional District Judges serving in the State of Haryana have been notified as the Competent Appellate Authority. The learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, Ambala is also an officer equivalent and/or in the rank of Additional District Juge and there is nothing on record to suggest that he could not exercise the powers of 'Appellate Authority' under the Rent Act. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner – tenant Civil Revision No.1221 of 2008 -: 4 :- to vacate the premises by making an alternative arrangement. Having regard to all the attending circumstances, however, subject to the petitioner giving an undertaking in writing within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order before the learned Rent Controller, Ambala that he shall hand over vacant peaceful possession of the demised premises to the respondents and further subject to his depositing the arrears of rent, if any, and payment of rent on or before the 10th day of every calender month, it is directed that eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises shall remain stayed till 31st August, 2008. Disposed of. March 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge