Civil Revision No. 2318 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2318 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.5.2010 Surinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Devinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S.Benipal, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The plea filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller and the finding was affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority. The averment made and upheld in the context was that the premises are required by the respondent-landlord for running of shoe business by his son. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, argues that the finding deserves to be invalidated for the simple reason that the petitioner-tenant had made a specific averment in the course of the written statement that no funds for the running of the averred business were available with the respondent- landlord and that averment in the written statement would be deemed to have been conceded because no rejoinder thereto came Civil Revision No. 2318 of 2010 -2- ***** to be filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord. The plea raised is without any merit. In a plea for ejectment, all that the Rent Controller would be obliged to find out is whether the plea for personal necessity is made out or not. It will be too far to expect the averring party to adduce evidence to the effect that it is possessed of funds adequate enough to run the averred business. If, however, the respondent- landlord does not proceed to run the averred business for which the eviction had been obtained, the rent Legislation has in-built mechanism to ensure that the ousted tenant gets the possession of the tenanted premises. Thus, it is not a case where the landlord may make an averment just like that and get away with it by wishing away in-built mechanism. It is in evidence that son of the respondent-landlord is presently an employee at a shoe shop. The experience gained by him in that employment of his, would obviously, be helpful when he runs his own venture in the premises aforementioned. The outer limit within which a Revisional Court can undertake the adjudicatory exercise was provided by the Apex Court in judicial pronouncements reported as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 1999 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 805 and Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Rak Bajaj (deceased) through LRs. and others (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1. On perusal thereof, it can safely be culled out that “a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that should be for the Civil Revision No. 2318 of 2010 -3- ***** limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact finding court is wholly unreasonable. The present is not a case falling in that category. No other point was argued. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 21, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE