IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2484 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2009. Bimla Chhabra & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. V.K.Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Vashisht, Advocate Versus Mohinder Pal 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. [ORAL) The petitioner – landlords are aggrieved at the judgments dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala, dismissing their eviction petition, as well as dated 7.11.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala, confirming the said order in appeal. The petitioners sought eviction of the respondent – tenant, inter-alia, on the grounds that – [i] the premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation; and [ii] they require the demised premises for their personal use and occupation. It may be noticed that the respondent is a tenant in two Shop Nos. 61/1 and 61/2 situated at Sain Market, Patiala. As regards the first ground of eviction, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the demised premises was constructed in the year 1987 and can not be said to have out-lived its utility to be declared as unfit and unsafe. No serious challenge could be made on behalf of the petitioners to the said finding of fact. Similarly, in respect of the second plea, namely, the personal necessity of the petitioners, the Courts below have found that there are other vacant shops available with the petitioners in the same building. The findings returned by the Courts below are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence, warranting no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. August 03, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE