Civil Revision No. 199 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.199 of 2005 Date of decision : 19.3.2010 Om Parkash ....Petitioner Versus Bahadur Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-landlord filed a petition, for obtaining ejectment of the respondents-landlords from the premises under reference, on an averment that he requires the same for his own use and occupation and also on an averment that the respondents-tenants had changed the user of the premises from commercial to godown. The respondents-tenants denied the averment and averred that the petition itself was not maintainable as the landlord had already filed another ejectment petition (against the respondents-tenants qua the premises aforementioned) on this very ground. The parties joined issue on point of maintainability of the petition on the averment noticed above. After noticing the relevant averment qua the maintainability in the light of provisions of Section 11 C.P.C., the learned Rent Controller held that the petition was not maintainable. In appeal too, the learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding that issue with regard to personal necessity having already been adjudicated upon by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Civil Revision No. 199 of 2005 -2- Authority and the matter being pending before this Court, it could not be agitated all over again by the petitioner-landlord. Qua other part of the allegation, it was noticed by the learned Appellate Authority that the point had been already answered against the petitioner-landlord. Reliance, in support of finding, was placed upon the learned Appellate Authority judgment (Ex. A/4). On point of fact, this Court is simultaneously disposing of a revision petition filed by the petitioner-landlord against the judgment of the Appellate Authority in the other case. In view thereof, it is apparent that the petitioner-landlord opted to raise those very grounds in this petition. When these very points had already been adjudicated upon in an earlier ejectment petition by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority and a revision petition was already pending before this Court, the pleas raised in this petition were not competent. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any fact which could enable the petitioner-landlord to wriggle out of legal exposition aforementioned. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE