Civil Revision No.3966 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3966 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2009 Om Wati .............. Petitioner Vs. Narinder Pal Singh ............Respondent Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. 2. Civil Revision No.2663 of 2008 Bahadur Singh .............. Petitioner Vs. Narinder Pal Singh ............Respondent Present: None for the parties. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 petitions are filed by two different tenants against one landlord and with regard to the same premises. The revision petitioners are the tenants, who challenge the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The eviction was sought on two grounds namely of non- payment of rent and for personal necessity. Both the revision petitions are being disposed of, in the light of facts enumerated in C.R. No.3966 of 2005. 2. The tenant assails the findings of the Courts below and also Civil Revision No.3966 of 2005 (O&M) -2- has moved an application in C.M. No.2343-CII of 2008 for reception of additional evidence to bring to light a subsequent event of purported sale by the landlord in favour of one Daya Ram and the landlord having lost the property to a third party cannot persist in the ground of eviction for personal necessity. The eviction has been ordered not merely on the issue of personal necessity but also on the ground of non-payment of rent. While adverting to the said ground, the Rent Controller has considered the fact that the tenant denied the status of landlord by contending that his original landlord Kartar Singh had been made a victim of fraud in selling the property to the petitioner before the Rent Controller by the alleged document dated 07.06.1996. The Court found that a tenant could not have denied the nature of transaction of sale or contended that the property had been dealt with by fraud in favour of the petitioner. Further, the Rent Controller also considered the fact that the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent as well as interest and costs assigned by the Rent Controller despite the fact that she was given an opportunity to do so. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that by the orders of this Court while ordering interim stay in the civil revision, the tenant has paid all the arrears of the rent and therefore, the ground is not available. This contention is merely stated to be rejected for the non-payment, which the law contemplates is the non-payment of rent after the determination of rent at the first hearing. The moment the tenant defied the status of the petitioner as a landlord and persisted in the same without paying the rent in spite of orders of Court, such a tenant renders herself liable for eviction forthwith, if the Civil Revision No.3966 of 2005 (O&M) -3- denial of title is found to be unjustified. 4. The approach of the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Appellate Authority accords with law and even without reference to the issue regarding the personal necessity, the tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent. The civil revision petitions are dismissed accordingly. No orders as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 17, 2009 Pankaj*