IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4050 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.08.2009 Amar Singh .....Petitioner versus Amarjit Kaur .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 15.12.2004 and whose appeal against the said eviction order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 21.4.2007. The respondent-landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent and that she needs the demised premises, comprising a shop, situated at Tanda Bye Pass C.R. No.4050 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Road, Hoshiarpur, for her own use and occupation for the start of business by her unemployed eldest son. The respondent-landlady's case was that she purchased the demised premises vide registered sale deed 22.5.2000 in which the petitioner was already a tenant on rent of Rs.200/- per month. She averred that her husband, namely, Narinder Singh died 13 years back when her second son was only 2 years old. Her eldest son (Surjit Singh) is 20 years of age and is unemployed, who has learnt the work of manufacturing of iron grills and gates etc. and that the family has no source of income as her second son is 15 years of age and is learning carpenter work. She, therefore, needs the demised premises for her personal use and occupation to establish the business of her eldest son. The only plea raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant appears to be that he was a tenant under the father-in-law of the respondent- landlady, namely, Gurcharan Singh, who claims to have sold the premises to the respondent vide sale deed dated 22.5.2000 which is nothing but a sham transaction, to secure his eviction on the ground of personal necessity. Both the Courts have rejected the aforesaid plea of the petitioner and have found, as a matter of fact, that the respondent-landlady has no other vacant shop in her possession; she needs the premises for start of business by her son; there is no other source of livelihood in the family. Assailing the aforestated concurrent finding of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the ownership having been acquired C.R. No.4050 of 2007 (O&M) 3 by the respondent-landlady by way of a sham transaction, she has not approached the Court with clean hands. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contention raised, I do not find any merit in the same. Suffice it to say that there was no compulsion for Gurcharan Singh, father in-law of the respondent- landlady to enter into a sham transaction and transfer the demised premises in favour of the respondent-landlady as he himself could also seek eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the demised premises is required for the use and occupation of his grand son. There is no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner-tenant has already handed over the possession of the demised premises in execution proceedings. 24-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE