CR No. 3570 of 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3570 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 28th July, 2009. Gurinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. H.S.Batth, Advocate Versus Darshan Singh Respondent 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? SURYA KANT, J. This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising a Shop with open Space, situated at village Ram Dass, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar by the Rent Controller, Ajnala vide the impugned order dated 30th November, 2007 and whose appeal against the afore-stated eviction order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide its judgment under challenge dated 15.4.2009. [2]. The respondent – landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short 'the Act'] seeking the petitioner – tenant's eviction from the demised premises, inter-alia, averring that he had purchased a plot measuring six marlas from one Savinder Singh son CR No. 3570 of 2009. ::-2-:: of Sadhu Singh, resident of village Ram Dass where he constructed two shops by the side of the road and kept the remaining space for construction of the residential house and one of the shop was rented out to the petitioner – tenant in the year 1997 @ Rs. 800/- per month and that [i] the petitioner – tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 20.10.1999; [ii] the respondent – landlord required the shop and open space for his personal use and occupation for start of business of his sons; [iii] there is no other plot or shop owned by him in village Ram Dass nor they have vacated any building in the urban area of that village and that he wants to start the business of General Store and Hardware for his sons who are doing the manual job as labourers in Chandigarh. [3]. The petitioner contested the ejectment petitioner, inter- alia, pleading that the rate of rent is Rs.400/- per month and not Rs.800/- and that he had already tendered the rent on 11.6.2003 w.e.f. 20.12.1999 onwards @ Rs.400/- per month. He also disputed the personal necessity as pleaded by the respondent – landlord. [4]. The Rent Controller framed four issues including Issue No. 2 as to whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since 20.12.1999 and Issue No. 2A as to whether the demised premises is required for personal use and occupation by the applicant as well as his sons? [5]. Since the Rent Controller while deciding Issue No. 2 held that the rent of the premises was Rs.400/- per month and the petitioner tenant had tendered the arrears of rent at that rate, the first ground of eviction was no longer available with the landlord. The real CR No. 3570 of 2009. ::-3-:: contentious issue between the parties was as to whether the respondent landlord required the demised premises for his bona-fide use and occupation? [6]. The Rent Controller having found that the landlord has three sons and none of them was in possession of any shop or doing any business and they are working as Labourers in Chandigarh, held that the demised premises is required by the landlord for a genuine and bona-fide cause, i.e., for the start of business of Hardware by his sons. The Rent Controller also held that there is no other plot or shop in village Ram Dass owned or possessed by the respondent – landlord or his sons. [7]. It may be relevant to mention here that in order to dislodge the claim of the respondent – landlord on the ground of personal necessity, the petitioner – tenant took up a plea that the landlord has already entered into an agreement to sell the shop in dispute, with his father. However, no such agreement to sell was produced on the file nor payment of any earnest money etc. proved. The Rent Controller accordingly rejected that plea and decided Issue No. 2-A in favour of the respondent – landlord. [8]. The petitioner – tenant went in appeal but his appeal has also been turned down by the Appellate Authority reiterating that there are three major sons of the respondent – landlord who are unemployed and/or doing the manual job as Labourers. There is no other land or shop owned by them or by their father where they can start their business. As the need of the premises has to be seen from the view point of the landlord, the Appellate Authority found no fault CR No. 3570 of 2009. ::-4-:: with the requirement put forth by the respondent – landlord. [9]. Still aggrieved, the petitioner – tenant has approached this Court. [10]. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. Learned counsel reiterated that since the respondent – landlord has already entered into an agreement to sell with the father of the petitioner – tenant, it can not be said that he requires the premises for starting the business by his sons. There is, however, no factual foundation in support of the said plea. No agreement to sell or other worth reliable evidence has been led by the tenant in support of the said plea. Contrary to it, the landlord has successfully proved that his three sons are major and unemployed and he needs the shop in dispute for start of their business which is quite bona-fide. No fault, therefore, can be found with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. There is no error of jurisdiction committed by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. [11]. Dismissed. July 28, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE