CR No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.02.2011. Mohit Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Chaman Lal Kapur and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenants are in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises (shop). In brief, the landlords filed eviction petition on the ground of non- payment of rent w.e.f. 01.06.2008 @ `550/- per month along with house tax @ `82.50/- per month till the filing of the eviction petition, change of user, premises having been unfit and unsafe for human habitation and personal necessity to set up a boutique. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenants on 11.08.2010 on the ground of personal necessity. The tenants filed appeal against the order of eviction, whereas the landlords filed cross- objections in respect of the findings recorded on other grounds of eviction. Before the learned Appellate Authority, the tenants had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of examining one Sagar Dass S/o Piare Lal in their additional evidence on the ground that the landlords had got vacated a godown from Sagar Dass, situated in Mohalla Malka, near Balmiki Gate, Jalandhar which was not pleaded in the ejectment petition. The said application was dismissed by the Appellate CR No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** Authority on 03.01.2011 on the ground that the application is vague as there are no averments about the ejectment petition by which alleged Sagar Dass was ordered to vacate the godown. It was also observed that even if it is true, the godown cannot be used as a shop. In the present revision petition, both the orders of ejectment as well as order of dismissing the application for additional evidence have been assailed by the tenants on the ground that the landlord being a lady of 67 years of age has not disclosed the knowledge of running a boutique, therefore, her need is not bona fide. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the available record with his assistance. Insofar as the order passed on application for additional evidence is concerned, I do not find any error in it because firstly the application is totally vague and secondly by leading that evidence, the tenants cannot not improve their case as godown would not take the place of a shop. As regards the personal necessity of the landlord, it is well settled that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlords as to how they would use the demised premises. Hence, I do not find any reason to disturb the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in favour of the landlords. The revision petition is thus dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. February 24, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE