CR No.1022 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1022 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.9.2011 Gurjant Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Chand Rani & Ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of eviction dated 17.1.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, Patti, District Amritsar, ordering the eviction of the petitioner as well as the judgment dated 15.1.2011 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order of eviction. It is relevant to notice that the order dated 14.2.2011 was passed on the basis of the contentions made before this court. The said order reads thus: “CM Nos.4359-CII of 2011 & 4360-CII of 2011 Civil Miscellaneous Applications are allowed as prayed for. CR No.1022 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the landlord had 11 shops and the eviction petition has been filed in order to settle his son therein. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition but during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner CR No.1022 of 2011 2 came to know that two shops were got vacated by the landlord and they were further let out after some repair and when he filed an application in this regard that the need could have been fulfilled with the shops which have been got vacated, the said application has not been decided by the Appellate Authority. Notice of motion for 7.3.2011. Dasti process. In the meanwhile, record of the Appellate Authority be also summoned through fax.” On receipt of the records, it was found that the application for leading additional evidence to bring on record the subsequent events was also dismissed vide separate order of the even date i.e. 15.1.2011. Noticing the aforesaid fact, this Court has passed the following order on 19.9.2011: “This is tenant's revision petition. On February 14, 2011, noticing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the following order was passed: CM No.4419-CII of 2011 and 4420-CII of 2011 Civil Miscellaneous Applications are allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.1037 of 2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the landlord had 11 shops and the eviction petition has been filed in order to settle his son therein. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on an appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner came to know that two shops were got vacated by the landlord and they were further let out after some affairs and when he filed an application in this regard that the need could be fulfilled with the shops which have been CR No.1022 of 2011 3 got vacated. The said application has not been decided by the Appellate Authority. Notice of motion for 7.3.2011. Dasti process. In the meanwhile, record of the First Appellate Authority be also summoned through fax. A perusal of the record of the Appellate Authority would show that vide order dated 15.01.2011, applications dated 16.07.2005, 09.10.2005 and 07.06.2009 for leading additional evidence moved by the tenant-petitioner were dismissed. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a short adjournment to enable him to get instructions. List on 27.09.2011. A photo copy of the order be placed on the file of another connected case.” Today, Mr. P.S. Baath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord-respondent has stated before this Court that in pursuance of the impugned orders, the respondents have already taken possession of the demised premises. The case of the petitioner is solely based on an argument that from the subsequent events, it is proved that the landlord was not in need of the demised premises. He sought to brought on record before the Appellate Authority additional evidence, however the said prayer was rejected. Before this Court, instead of challenging the aforesaid order of bringing on record the subsequent events by way of additional evidence, a false plea was taken that the said application was not decided. CR No.1022 of 2011 4 Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief. Dismissed. September 27, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.1022 of 2011 5