Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2008 1 ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2008 Date of decision : 24.5.2010 Shamsher Singh ....Petitioner Versus Sumesh Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vijay S. KajlaAdvocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. Both the Forums (learned Rent Controller and also learned Appellate Authority) upheld the plea raised by the respondents-landlords, for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises, on an averment of personal necessity. The solitary ground vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition having been filed on an averment that the tenanted premises were required for use by the sons of respondents-landlords itself deserves to be negatived in view of the fact that there is neither an averment in the course of the petition nor evidence to the effect that sons of respondents-landlords were not in occupation of any other similar accommodation in the urban area concerned and had also not vacated any similar premises Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2008 2 ***** since the commencement of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The plea raised is devoid of force, being oblivious of the averment made in the course of the petition. In the course of the petition, the following relevant averment had been made by the respondents-landlords on point of personal necessity:- “5. ...... (a) ...... (b) That the petitioners require the said tenancy premises for carrying on business for the sons of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has three sons who are all major and are unemployed, hence the petitioners bonafidely require the said shop for himself and for carrying on business in the said shop to be run by his unemployed sons. Thus, the requirement of the petitioners is for own occupation. The petitioners are not occupying any other residential building in the Urban Municipal area concerned and has not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after commencement of act.” Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon the averment in the petition that the tenanted premises were required for “carrying on business for the sons of respondent no.2”. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2008 3 ***** misconceived. The pleadings of a party have to be appreciated in its entirety and it would not be appropriate to pick up one averment out of it and raise a plea on the basis thereof. The pleadings have to be appreciated in toto. It would be evident from a perusal of the above quoted pleadings raised by the petitioners that the respondent-landlord had applied for the vacation of the tenanted premises for his own necessity (“for himself”) and for carrying on business in the said shop to be run by his unemployed sons. The respondents-landlords did not ever aver that unemployed sons would run the business in their own right. The business was to be run by the respondent-landlord and he was to utilise the services of his unemployed sons. There is plethora of evidence on the file that the respondent-landlord has three sons, all of whom are unemployed. In that view of things, the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority, on an averment of personal necessity, cannot be faulted on any valid score. No other point was raised. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. However, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant requests that little extra large time may be afforded to the petitioner- tenant to vacate the tenanted premises in view of the fact that the grant thereof would enable the tenant to look for an appropriate alternate accommodation which would enable him to keep on Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2008 4 ***** earning bread and butter for his family. It is ordered, in the circumstances of the case, that the petitioners herein shall have six months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. The petitioner shall file an undertaking to the above effect within fifteen from today before the Registry of this Court. In case of a default, the petitioner-tenant shall be liable to eviction forthwith from the premises aforementioned. May 24, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE