Civil Revision No.6582 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6582 of 2009 Date of decision : 17.3.2010 Dalip Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Ghuman, Advocate for respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Faced with the predicament of having to criticise the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority upholding the entitlement of the respondent-landlord to eject the petitioner/tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant argued that the controversy adjudicated upon was not within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority in view of a statement made by none else or other than the respondent-landlord that the petitioner herein is not a tenant under him, that he is in illegal possession of the tenanted premises and that he is a tress passer (“Respondent is not my tenant. He is in illegal possession of shop in dispute.”) On that premise, the plea raised is that it was for the Civil Revision No.6582 of 2009 -2- respondent-landlord to have recourse to the remedy available to him on the civil side to file a suit for possession of the premises under the occupation of the petitioner. In an act of resistance, it was argued on behalf of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner-tenant cannot pick up the above quoted three stray sentences out of testimony of the landlord and raise a plea for the ouster of the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller, particularly when the relationship of the landlord tenant had been conceded in the pleadings at the trial. Though there can be no dispute with the fact that the respondent-landlord did make a statement which stands quoted within brackets in the preceding para, the petitioner tenant also cannot wish away the fact that a precise averment made by the respondent-landlord in the course of para 1 of the ejectment petition (“that petitioner is the owner of the suit property detailed in the head note of the plaint. The petitioner is the owner/landlord of the suit property & respondent is a tenant in the suit property”) was conceded by the petitioner herein in the corresponding para of the written statement (“that para No.1 of the application is wrong and denied for want of knowledge. However, it is submitted that respondent is tenant under applicant @ of Rs.700/- per month with regard to the premises in dispute.”) Interestingly enough, the petitioner-tenant stage a volte face in the course of the affidavit which was tendered in lieu of the examination-in-chief. The averment made in the course thereof are in complete violation of above quoted plea in the written statement Civil Revision No.6582 of 2009 -3- conceding that he is in possession of the tenanted premises as a tenant under the respondent-landlord. He made an averment in the course of the affidavit that the tenanted premises was neither owned by respondent-landlord Vijay Kumar nor is he landlord qua him. Needless to assert that evidence in violation of the pleadings would be viewed with legal disdain and cannot be accepted at law. Further, by the very nature of things, the stray sentences in the testimony of a witness cannot be picked up to the detriment of that party. A statement of a witness has to be appreciated in totality. In the context of appreciation, the fact that there was no controversy about the inter-se relationship of landlord and tenant also cannot be ignored from consideration. I have, thus, no hesitation in holding that the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority did have jurisdiction to try this matter which was within their competence. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, did not assail the finding (on point of personal necessity). It may be noticed otherwise that there is plethora of evidence to prove that respondent-landlord has two sons, one out of whom is in small time business, for the sale of pulses, in partnership with a friend (of his) because no premises for running of independent business are available. For want of independent business, the respondent-landlord is also not receiving any offer for his matrimonial alliance. That part of evidence has not been rebutted by any adequate evidence on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. In view of the evidence adduced by the respondent- Civil Revision No.6582 of 2009 -4- landlord and further for want of any adequate rebuttal thereof, we have to give it to landlord to decide what premises he needs for personal bonafide necessity which (averment) would include the necessity of premises on his part for his child who is not in an appropriate business anywhere. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner-tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 17, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE