Civil Revision No.7236 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7236 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.11.2010 Tejinderjit Singh Bains and another ....Petitioners Versus Vijay Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 8.10.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby application moved by the landlord to examine Maninderjit Singh-petitioner No.2 in additional evidence, was rejected. The brief facts of the present case are that initially mother of the petitioners has filed eviction petition against the respondent-tenant on the ground that the demised property is required by the landlord for the personal use and necessity. During the pendency of the eviction petition, landlord, mother of the petitioners, expired. Petitioners were impleaded as LRs of the original landlord and also filed amended application stating therein that petitioner No.2 Maninderjit Singh is unemployed youth and needs demised premises for his personal use and occupation to set up his own independent business therein. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Advocate, stated that Civil Revision No.7236 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Tejinderjit Singh-petitioner No.1 has appeared as one of the witnesses and stated on oath that property in question is required by Maninderjit Singh to start his own independent business, since Maninderjit Singh is unemployed youth. Learned Senior Advocate, states that just to avoid legal complications that Maninderjit Singh has not appeared in the witness box to state that he needs demised premises for his independent business, petitioners want to produce Maninderjit Singh as additional witness. I have thoroughly examined the record. In the opinion of this Court, if petitioners, being landlords, have set up a case that demised premises is required for the personal necessity of Maninderjit Singh to start his own independent business since he is unemployed youth, then one statement of petitioner No.1 to prove alleged need is sufficient and there is no need to produce Maninderjit Singh as additional witness to say that, in fact, he himself requires demised property for his own business. Learned Rent Controller is expected to decide the question of personal bona fide need in accordance with law. I do not find any reason to permit petitioner No.2 to repeat the statement of petitioner No.1. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 08, 2010 R.S.