CR No.1036 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No.1036 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-August 17,2009 Rajbir ....Petitioner Versus Govind Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present: Shri Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed by the tenant against whom eviction order dated 26.8.2008 has been passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon and whose appeal against the said eviction order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon vide judgment dated 31.10.2008. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in a residential house No.276/12, Jawahar Nagar, Guraon in the year 1987. The respondent-landlords are two brothers who own two residential houses i.e. the one partly occupied by the petitioner-tenant and the other bearing No.323/16 Nai Basti, Gurgaon occupied by the landlords. The second house is built on a plot measuring 150 square yards and is comprising two bedrooms, verandah, drawing room, kitchen and store. Admittedly, the respondent-landlords have two major sons each and all of them are married. One of the sons is having a CR No.1036 of 2009 (O&M) 2 minor girl child also. As the existing accommodation comprising two bedrooms fell short for their family, they sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity as well as non- payment of arrears of rent. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority both have concurred that the present accommodation with the respondent-landlords is wholly insufficient and they require the demised premises for their bona fide personal use and occupation. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that after filing of the present petition, the respondents have already taken possession of the demised premises from the petitioner. He, however, submits that since the respondents have been using a part of the demised premises for commercial purposes, it cannot be said that they need the portion occupied by the petitioner for their residential purposes. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Even if at one point of time, the respondents were using a part of the residential house for commercial purposes, that does not mean that they cannot use the portion occupied by the petitioner for residential purposes, more so, when the portion occupied by the petitioner was let out to him for residential purposes only. There is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Surya Kant) Judge 17.8.2009 AS