IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6674 of 2009 Date of decision: 27th August, 2010 Geeta … Petitioner Versus Balbir Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Narender Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Jigyasa tanwar, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) I have heard counsel for the parties. In the present revision petition, order of eviction passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana and affirmed by appellate authority are under challenge. During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondent has submitted that only four shops are owned by the respondent-landlord and it was specifically stated that one shop was in possession of son of the respondent-landlord. Whereas in cross-examination, it could not be put in right perspective that the same shop was also possessed by his daughter-in-law. Counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed this fact and has referred to the evidence of PW-2 Kuldeep Singh, an official from the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to say that the respondent-landlord was in possession of five shops. Learned counsel has further referred to the Civil Revision No.6674 of 2009 cross-examination of PW-3 Balbir Singh, respondent-landlord, wherein he stated that there were two shops, out of which one was in dispute and there were other three shops in Gali No.4 on the northern side. Therefore, out of these three shops, one was in possession of daughter-in-law of the respondent-landlord, whereas out of two shops one is in possession of the son of the petitioner. Thus, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is concealment of a material fact by the respondent-landlord. Counsel for the respondent-landlord has very fairly stated that the facts were not put in the right perspective and there has been a communication gap, therefore, she be permitted to withdraw the eviction petition to institute a fresh one on the same cause of action. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection thereto. Accordingly, counsel for the respondent-landlord is permitted to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to institute a fresh one on the same cause of action. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 27, 2010 rps 2