Civil Revision No.3610 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:14.07.2011 Karamveer Godara ....petitioner Versus Subhash Chander Dureja & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Aman Arora, Advocate for the petitioner *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. CM No.14278-CII of 2011 & CM No.15915-CII of 2011 Civil Misc.applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. CMs disposed of. CM No.14277-CII of 2011 Since the petition is also heard on merits and is being disposed of on merits, the application for condonation of delay does not survive. Civil Revision No.3610 of 2011(O & M) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Panchkula, whereby his eviction was ordered from the demised premises in dispute on the ground that he was in arrears of rent and also that the respondent- landlords need the premises in dispute in their personal bona fide necessity Civil Revision No.3610 of 2011(O & M) 2 and his appeal against the order of Rent Controller, Panchkula was dismissed. The order of the Appellate Authority, Panchkula was passed on 12.11.2010 and finding that the petitioner is in arrears of rent, this Court passed the following order on 06.07.2011: “Present: Mr.Aman Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that after passing of the order by the Appellate Authority, rent is due against the petitioner. Let the arrears of rent till July 2011 be brought by way of demand draft in the name of Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarhon the next date of hearing. The deposit of aforesaid amount of arrears of rent shall be without prejudice to the rights of the respondent- landlord. List on 14.07.2011. -Sd- (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge ” Today,in compliance of the order dated 06.07.2011, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed on record a Banker's Cheque amounting to Rs.34,140/- as arrears of rent, up to date. Let this Banker's Cheque be deposited with the Registrar of this Court to be paid to the respondents as arrears of rent subject to further adjustments. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits of the case. It has been vehemently submitted before this Court that no Civil Revision No.3610 of 2011(O & M) 3 issue was framed by the courts below qua the payment of rent by the petitioner-tenant to the respondents-landlords and thus the findings of the courts below, in this respect, were liable to be set aside. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is without any merit. There are specific averments in the ejectment application regarding the non-payment of rent by the petitioner-tenant and even the petitioner has filed the reply to the aforesaid averments. Thus, the parties knew their case very well and it was for them to prove the same in accordance with law. Not only this, the provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller, Panchkula. The petitioner has not challenged the same and even no rent was paid after the said assessment. In fact, the petitioner has not disputed that the respondents are the landlord and landlady of the demised premises. Even the rate of rent was not disputed by the petitioner and therefore, no further enquiry was required by the Rent Controller, Panchkula, for assessment of rent. Even before this Court, counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out as to how the assessment made by the courts below regarding the assessment of rent was wrong. There is nothing on record to sustain the averments made by the petitioner with regard to payment of rent and the rate of rent. Thus, no interference is required in the aforesaid findings by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has further challenged the judgements of the courts below submitting that the demises premises was let out by respondent No.2 who did not appear as a witness to face the cross-examination or to prove her bona fide requirement being Advocate and, therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against her to hold that the need of the petitioner-tenant was not bona fide. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgements. As per the averments, admittedly, the petitioner had taken Civil Revision No.3610 of 2011(O & M) 4 the demised premises i.e.consisting of one room, kitchen, bathroom and toilet and his part of House No.1436, Sector-15, Panchkula. The petitioner had taken the aforesaid accommodation projecting himself as a student of Panjab University, Chandigarh. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that the respondent-landlord needs the demised premises for his bona fide need i.e.to operate his office for doing legal practice at Panchkula. It is well settled that landlord is the best judge of his needs. There is ample evidence on record on the basis of which the findings returned by the courts below are based upon. It is not a case where the Court can substitute its own opinion by holding that the findings of the courts below are not born out from the record. Neither, it can be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as to how the findings were incorrect. Thus, no interference is required in the impugned orders. Revision petition stands dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 14.07.2011 neenu