Civil Revision No. 4021 of 1995 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4021 of 1995 Date of decision : 27.5.2010 Sukhdev Raj ....Petitioner Versus Moti Lal ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-landlord succeeded in obtaining an order (dated 27.10.1993) for ejectment against the respondent-tenant at the hands of the learned Rent Controller. However, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding in appeal and non-suited him on a finding that he had not been able to prove that he had vacated (sold off) House No.520/2 to a third person after two years of his retirement, for a sufficient cause. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the finding of reversal recorded by the learned Appellate Authority is inappropriate in toto. The petitioner- landlord had, the plea proceeded, been able to prove that he had to sell residential House No.520/2 to raise funds for solemnizing the marriages of his daughters. Civil Revision No. 4021 of 1995 -2- **** The plea deserves to be merely noticed to be discarded. It may be noted, in the context, that the averment made in the course of the petition was to the effect that petitioner-landlord was forced to sell off his house bearing No.520/2 “in order to settle him in life”. The averment was relate-able to the settlement of his son Munish Kumar who is of marriageable age of 23 years. The petitioner-landlord entered the witness box, as his own witness. He did not even utter a word in the course of the examination-in-chief qua the need for which he had to sell off the house aforementioned. It is only in the course of the cross-examination that he indicated that he had to sell off that house in the year 1990 in order to be able to raise funds for the marriage of his two daughters and to pay off certain debt raised in the context. As already noticed, the averment in the course of the petition was that the petitioner-landlord had to sell off house No.520/2 in order to settle his son Mukesh Kumar; while the averment (that too in the course of cross-examination) was that the funds were required to pay off debt which the petitioner- landlord had raised to solemnise the marriages of his daughters. The learned Appellate Authority had correctly noticed the variations in the averment in the petition and the substantive evidence. It would, thus, be apparent that the petitioner-landlord who retired from his employment in the Railway Department in the year 1988 had not been able to prove that he had sold off the other residential house for a sufficient cause. The finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority deserves affirmation and it is so ordered Civil Revision No. 4021 of 1995 -3- **** accordingly. In terms of the provisions of the Rent Legislation, a landlord who applies for eviction of a tenant from the tenanted premises, has to make a statutory averment that he had not vacated any similar accommodation in the same urban area without any sufficient cause since the commencement of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. It is in that context that the learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the petitioner – landlord had not been able to prove that the sale of his house in the year 1990 was for a sufficient cause. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 4021 of 1995 -4- ****