Civil Revision No.1290 of 2008 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** (I) Civil Revision No.1290 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 24.08.2009 **** Siri Chand . . . . Petitioner VS. Suresh Kumar . . . . Respondent **** (II) ` Civil Revision No.2643 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 24.08.2009 **** Narender Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Suresh Kumar . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.R. Dahia, Advocate for respondent ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.1290 of 2008 and Civil Revision No.2643 of 2008 as in both the cases, the eviction orders have been passed against two different tenants at the instance of the same respondent- landlord, by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani. The respondent-landlord purchased the shop in question by way of registered sale deed dated 15th April, 1999. It appears that one almirah had been installed inside the area of the shop but its rolling shutter opens towards the public verandah. The said almirah along with rolling shutter Civil Revision No.1290 of 2008 - 2 - was let out by the respondent-landlord to Narender Kumar- petitioner in Civil Revision No.2643 of 2008. Similarly, another wooden almirah was hanged on the outer wall of the shop towards public verandah, was let out by the same landlord to Siri Chand-petitioner in Civil Revision No.1290 of 2008. The respondent-landlord sought the eviction of both the tenants, inter alia, on the ground that he himself is running/working as tailor in his shop and since he has employed 5-6 workers, the space in the shop has fallen short and with a view to include the portion in occupation of the first tenant with steel almirah under his tenancy, that the eviction was sought on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller, having regard to the small size of the shop in occupation of the respondent-landlord and the fact that he requires more space for the workers, ordered the eviction of the tenants directing them to vacate the almirah/rack portion, referred to above. The tenants preferred their respective appeals which have also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani vide impugned judgement dated 10th January, 2008. Notice of motion was issued and in pursuance thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard and the impugned orders have been perused. From the photographs shown during the course of hearing, it does appear that if the steel almirah is removed and access towards verandah from the shop owned by the Civil Revision No.1290 of 2008 - 3 - respondent-landlord is closed, it will increase the inner space of the shop as is required by the respondent-landlord. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in this regard, calls for no interference by this Court and therefore, Civil Revision No.2643 of 2008 is dismissed. As regards, Civil Revision No.1290 of 2008, the wooden rack rented out to the petitioner-tenant appears to be hanging on the outer wall of the shop of the landlord. Though no interference in a finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller is called for, nevertheless, it appears that the said wooden rack has been fixed in the wall to the inconvenience of the general public. The said space does not belong to the respondent-landlord and in fact is a part of the verandah meant for the use of general public. Consequently, while upholding the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlord is also directed to remove the wooden rack and not to obstruct or use the passage meant for the general public. Civil Revision No.1290 of 2008 is, accordingly, disposed of. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 24.08.2009 shonkar