Civil Revision No.1534 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1534 of 2009 Date of Decision:-July 27,2009 Manjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gurmit Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present:- Mr.D.S.Pheruman,Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 15.1.2008 and 16.12.2008 passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, Amritsar, respectively, whereby ejectment of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered from the demised premises comprising a shop forming 1/3rd part of plot bearing No.45 to Kot Mahna Singh, Amritsar on the ground of personal necessity. The respondent-landlady sought the eviction, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.2.2004 and that she requires the demised premises for her bonafide personal use and occupation i.e. for the use of her son. The respondent's case was that she has got three sons (Karanjit Singh, Civil Revision No.1534 of 2009 2 Amit Pal Singh and Amandeep Singh) and one daughter (Mandeep Kaur). She had lost her husband and now with the passage of time, her children have become major. There are three shops in the building, out of which, one was under the occupation of her elder son, namely, Karanjit Singh and the second shop is under the tenancy of the petitioner and third shop is occupied by the one tea vendor/Halwai. The respondent-landlady further averred that her son Amitpal Singh is 25 years old and is unemployed and there is no other vacant shop or premises to start his business of repair work of electrical items. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant contested the eviction petition. He tendered the arrears of rent and therefore, the first ground of eviction was no longer available to the respondent- landlady. As regards the second ground, namely, the personal necessity, the respondent herself stepped into the witness box as AW1 and also produced Rohit Gupta Draftsman (AW3) who had prepared the site plan Ex.P6, to prove that there was no space available for her younger son to start the business of electrical repairs etc. The respondent took a categoric stand that her two sons, namely, Amitpal Singh and Amandeep Singh have learnt the work of electricity repair and welding of grills and they need the demised premises to start their own business. The petitioner-tenant has led no evidence to dislodge the afore-stated landlady's claim or to show that there is some other vacant commercial property available with the respondent. In these circumstances, there is nothing on record, which may warrant interference by a revisional Court in the Civil Revision No.1534 of 2009 3 concurrent finding of fact returned by the Courts below. For the reasons afore-stated, the present revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent- landlady on or before 31.10.2009. (Surya Kant) Judge 27.7.2009 AS