CR No. 975 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 975 of 2009 Date of decision February 25, 2009 Mithu Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Bachittar Singh ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision is against the order dismissing an application filed by the tenant under which he sought for dismissal of the petition that it had no cause of action to prosecute. 2. The landlord had filed a petition for eviction among other grounds for personal necessity under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and had referred to his desire to settle his grand son Sukhwinder Singh in a business. During the course of proceeding Sukhwinder Singh died leaving behind two sons Harjit Singh and Grubir Singh who are still studying. The tenant's contention was that after the death of Sukhwinder Singh for whose business the landlord had sought the premises, the cause of action itself did not survive. He sought for dismissal on that short ground. The Rent Controller however dismissed the petition observing that the case did not become infructuous and assumed that the CR No. 975 of 2009 2 petitioner intended to settle the great grand sons for the business even when there was no such pleading. The Court while dismissing the application that the petitioner's side has been closed, it was posted only for evidence of the respondent. It has also observed that is is only delaying tactics on the part of the respondent. The tenant always has a right to prove that the necessity as pleaded by the petitioner has ceased to exist by bringing to notice his subsequent event at the death of Sukhwinder Singh. The order of the Rent Controller shall be sustained subject only to giving liberty to the respondent to tender in evidence the subsequent event and to contend that the proceedings have become infructuous. The question whether the cause of action survived for the benefit of the landlord after the death of Sukhwinder Singh will be a matter of consideration on merits at the time of final disposal of the rent control petition. The observations of the Rent Controller that the petitioner was having personal necessity/bona fide requirement of the premises and it still subsisted is set aside and it should be a matter of adjudication at the final disposal of the trial. 3. Civil revision is disposed of on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 25, 2009 archana