IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.618 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.11.2010 Kirpal Singh ....Petitioner Versus Barjinder Kaur ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2009 by virtue of which he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. The respondent had sought the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity as she wanted to set up the business venture for her son who was qualified to carry out pharmaceutical business. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller the son of the respondent got employment in a government undertaking which fact was sought to be introduced by way of additional evidence before the appellate authority. The prayer was C.R.No.618 of 2010 (O&M) -2- declined and the order of eviction was passed on the plea of personal necessity which was accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it was imperative for the appellate authority to take into consideration the subsequent events and to see what was the effect of such events on the controversy before it. He thus contends that the matter ought to be considered in the light of the subsequent events which cannot be ignored. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that if the subsequent events are taken into consideration then in that interregnum when the proceedings were pending two other sons of the respondent have attained adulthood and require the premises for their own use and occupation. In the backdrop of the aforesaid controversy both the learned counsel are agreed that the matter be remitted back to the Rent Controller in order to ascertain the controversy in the light of the aforesaid facts which have come into existence after the filing of the petition by the respondent-landlady. The Supreme Court in Mohd.Ismail vs.Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, 2009(2) R.L.R. 449 has observed as follows :- “15. In our view, although such admitted facts has not been considered by the Courts below. We do not propose to allow the appeal in full but remand the case back to the High Court, who in turn, would frame issues to the extent whether in view of the subsequent events as stated herein earlier, the bona fide requirement of the C.R.No.618 of 2010 (O&M) -3- landlord/respondent has already been satisfied or not. 16. For this purpose, it would be open to the respondent to amend his pleading of the eviction petition against which additional objection may also be filed by the tenant/appellant. Thereafter both the parties shall be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases and to reach a final finding of fact on the question whether the case of bonafide requirement of the respondent was duly proved and such findings along with records and the evidence to be adduced for this purpose shall be transmitted back to the High Court, who will after considering the evidence on record and the evidence that would be taken after remand alongwith the findings of the Rent Controller, finally decide whether the requirement of the landlord/respondent was satisfied by the occurrence of subsequent events either during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagpur or before the High Court.” In view of the aforesaid and to render substantial justice to the parties it is deemed appropriate to remit the matter back to the Rent Controller to decide the issues inter se between the parties. For the said purpose the respondent shall be permitted to amend the pleadings in the rent petition to incorporate the plea of personal necessity qua two of her sons who have attained adulthood and likewise the petitioner shall be given the opportunity to controvert such a plea. Since the matter is extremely old, it is also deemed C.R.No.618 of 2010 (O&M) -4- appropriate to direct the Rent Controller to grant one opportunity to either of the parties to complete the pleadings and two opportunities each to the petitioner and respondent to lead their evidence in this regard and thereafter conclude the matter, preferably within a period of six months from the date it commences upon such proceedings. The Rent Controller shall also determine the provisional rent at the prevailing market rate. Disposed of. 30.11.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss