CIVIL REVISION NO.6004 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 11, 2008 Ashwani Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Harbans Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. A. K. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent-landlord has successfully prosecuted his rent petition, leading to eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised shop. The main ground for ejectment canvassed by the respondent-landlord was due to personal necessity, which was accepted by the Rent Controller and has been up-held by the Appellate Court. The landlord who was an employee of Post Office, retired on 31.7.1998. He sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he wants to start business in the shop after his retirement. The other CIVIL REVISION NO.6004 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: necessary pleas that he was not occupying any other shop in Urban Area of Ambala City and that he has not vacated any premises without any sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area is also made in the petition. The petitioner-tenant disputed the averment made by the landlord. He would mainly plead that essential ingredients and requirement of seeking ejectment on the ground of personal necessity are missing in the present petition. It is further stated that the landlord is a patient of Asthma and is 60 years old and is not in a fit state of health to start business after retirement. The rate of rent otherwise is not disputed but it is pointed out that the landlord is employed in some private factory after his retirement. The Rent Controller has ordered the ejectment of the petitioner by finding that landlord has succeeded in showing and proving his bonafide personal use, which was upheld by the Appellate Court. That is how the petitioner is now in this revision before this Court. As per the record, the petitioner had raised limited argument before the Appellate Court and this was to the effect that landlord in order to succeed must allege and prove three ingredients i.e. (i) premises is required for personal use and occupation (ii) he does not possess any other property and (iii) he has not vacated any such property after commencement of the Act without sufficient cause. The plea of the tenant-petitioner is that while appearing in the witness box, the landlord did not lead any evidence that he has not vacated any premises after the commencement of the Act. Thus, the only plea which was apparently raised by the petitioner before the CIVIL REVISION NO.6004 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: Appellate Court that the necessary ingredients to prove the personal necessity had neither been averred or proved by the evidence led by the respondent-landlord. Reference is also made to some of the judgments in support of the submission that such ingredients must be pleaded and proved and in the absence of the same, the ejectment order can not be sustained. While arguing the revision petition before this Court, the learned counsel has gone on to some different track and would mainly urge that the respondent-landlord had sought eviction of the petitioner from the shop without disclosing that single petition had been filed, seeking eviction from two shops in occupation of the petitioner-tenant, which is not permissible. In this regard, the learned counsel would refer to the pleadings as well as the judgments where it is noticed that the respondent-landlord is the owner of premises bearing House Tax No.1513-A and 1513-B, Block No.2, Triveni Road, Ambala City. Reference is also made to two documents executed on 2.4.1991 and 18.4.1979 in respect of shop Nos.1513-A and 1513-B. Submissions on these lines though were made before the Rent Controller but were not pursued before the Appellate Court. While responding to this plea raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Rent Controller, the landlord-respondent has pointed out that two numbers had been allotted for House Tax purposes whereas it was only one shop. The documents in support of the arguments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner i.e. Exhibits R4 and R5, were taken into consideration and it was found that the petitioner was under an obligation and a duty to prove his stand that there are two CIVIL REVISION NO.6004 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: shops and that shop Nos.1513-A and 1513-B, which are separate. Reference is made to an order, Exhibit P-3, whereby fair rent was fixed @ Rs.240/- per month. It is rightly observed that if these shops have been separate, the fair rent was bound to be assessed separately and not one for both the shops. The plea of the petitioner, as such, was found without merit, ofcourse justifiable. Perhaps due to this reason, the petitioner did not pursue this line of submission before the Appellate Court. I do not find any merit in this plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner before me. There is no evidence on record in support of this plea. The reference to part of pleadings where it is referred to as `shops' etc. would not be sufficient to say that these shops are separate and are not one specially in the background that the fair rent was assessed for the shop as single rent payable and not separately. I also do not find any merit in the submissions that necessary pleadings for establishing the requirement of bonafide need are not made by the respondent-landlord. It is seen from the record that respondent-landlord has very categorically pleaded that he does not own any other shop except the tenanted premises. In this background, to say that averment that the respondent has not vacated any shop, would be inherent and inbuilt in the plea that the landlord did not own any shop except for the tenanted premises. Once the landlord did not own any shop except the tenanted premises, there was no question for him to vacate any such shop. Even otherwise, it has been specifically pleaded by the respondent- landlord that no premises has been vacated by him after the commencement of the Act and this fact was denied in reply filed by CIVIL REVISION NO.6004 OF 2006 :{ 5 }: the tenant. If indeed the landlord had vacated any premises after the commencement of the Act, the tenant was at liberty to show and prove the same by leading evidence, which he failed to do. This plea of the tenant-petitioner is again without any merit and as such, can not be accepted. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. April 11,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE