Civil Revision No.4228 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4228 of 2011 Date of Decision:29.07.2011 Sardari Lal ....petitioner Versus Tarawanti .....respondent 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.Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): On July 20, 2011, the following order was passed in this case: “This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders passed by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby his eviction has been ordered on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord and that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Before this Court, it has been vehemently argued that the property in dispute is a shop which is situated in a commercial area and was let out for the commercial purpose and is an independent unit, therefore, the same cannot be got evicted on the Civil Revision No.4228 of 2011 2 ground of personal necessity of the landlord for residential purposes. However, the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the demised premises though was rented out as a shop but is a part and parcel of the main residential building of the landlord and further that the need of the landlord for the residential purposes of the family is established. To assail the findings, counsel for the petitioner though argued vehemently and has taken this Court through the impugned orders but remained unsuccessful in pointing out any material, on the basis of which, any interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned orders. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that possibility of amicable settlement between the parties be explored as the petitioner was ready to pay the market rent for the demised premises to the landlord and execute the fresh rent deed/lease deed. Only to explore the aforesaid possibility, notice of motion is issued to the respondent for 29.07.2011. Dasti only.” As per office report, dasti notice issued to the respondent not received back, served or otherwise. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reply regarding the service upon respondent, by way of dasti. Notice of motion was issued only to explore the possible of amicable settlement between the parties as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It seems that the Civil Revision No.4228 of 2011 3 petitioner is not interested in the same. Hence, there is no ground to proceed further. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 29.07.2011 neenu