CR No.2122 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.2122 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on: 31.08.2009 **** Ram Sarup . . . . Petitioner VS. Champa Devi etc. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Dasuya vide his order dated 03.01.2008 from the demised premises comprising a shop situated in Gopal Singh Market, Ward No.10, Mukerian, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and that order has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur vide its judgement dated 19.02.2009. The respondent-landlords sought eviction of the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that the shop in dispute was rented out to the petitioner by Baldev Singh – their predecessor-in-interest @ Rs.120/- per month. After the death of Baldev Singh, the respondents have become owners/landlord of the shop and that the petitioner is liable to be ejected on the grounds that: (i) he is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1996, and (ii) the shop is required by the respondent-landlords for their personal use and occupation as the family has no source of income, whatsoever and they want to start their own business to earn livelihood. CR No.2122 of 2009 - 2 - The petitioner-tenant contested the respondents’ claim and denied that they need the demised premises for their own use and occupation. He, however, tendered the arrears of rent along with cost and interest. The parties went on trial on the following issues:- i. Whether the tender made by the respondent is valid and correct? OPA ii. Whether the shop in dispute is required by the petitioners iii. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR iv. Whether petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as alleged? OPR v. Whether the site plan filed by the petitioners is not correct? OPR vi. Relief. While deciding Issue No.2, the Rent Controller has categorically held that the respondents have no source of income and they need the demised premises to start their own business to earn livelihood. No evidence, whatsoever, has been led by the petitioner-tenant to show that there is any other shop or premises in occupation of the respondent-landlords or they have vacated any such premises ever. The above stated findings of fact has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority vide its judgement dated 19.02.2009. The respondent-landlady is wife of late Baldev Singh; they have two major sons and one daughter. It is obvious that some source of livelihood is required for sustenance of the family. It stands proved that the sons of late Baldev Singh are without job and, therefore, the demised premises is required to enable them to start some business for their survival and hence, the respondent-landlord are in personal bona fide necessity. CR No.2122 of 2009 - 3 - No argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner-tenant to controvert the above noticed facts. In these circumstances, no interference with the impugned order and judgement is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 31.08.2009 shonkar