Civil Revision No. 5748 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5748 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.9.2010 Mohinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Bhaskar Bansal and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. J.C. Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a tenant in the demised shop situated at Kurali. Both the Courts below have ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised shop. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision petition has been filed. The respondents/landlords sought eviction of the petitioner on the following grounds:- A) The petitioner has not paid the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for the period from 1.9.2003 till the filing of the eviction petition. B) The petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised shop as he has started the business of Goldsmith at Chandigarh. C) The demised shop is required for personal use and Civil Revision No. 5748 of 2010 2 occupation for running the cloth business by Arun Kumar son of respondent No.3-Usha Rani. To preempt the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised shop, the petitioner has stated in his written statement that the demised shop is a godown, therefore, no electric connection is required. It was being used by him for parking his car as he is residing with his family at Kurali. However, he admitted that he has shifted from Kurali and started the business of goldsmith at Chandigarh. The respondents/landlords examined Satish Kumar as PW.3 and Jagdish Chand as PW.4, who sated that the tenant had shifted with his entire family, five/six years back, to Chandigarh and both the shops are lying closed. They further stated that even the telephone has been disconnected. PW.3 Satish Kumar, after his examination-in-chief having been recorded, had not turned up for cross-examination. However, PW.4 Jagdish Chand withstood the test of cross-examination. The Rent Controller, Kharar, after perusing the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the demised shop. Furthermore, the Rent Controller has also upheld the ground of personal necessity made out by the respondents/landlords. However, the Rent Controller has held that the respondents/landlords had failed to prove the increased rent of Rs.500/- per month, so he determined the rent as Rs.200/- per month. The findings of the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. The concurrent findings, recorded by both the Courts below, suffer from no infirmity. Thus, this Court is hesitant to cause any Civil Revision No. 5748 of 2010 3 interference in the present revision petition, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction as re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence is not in the domain of the Revisional Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 8, 2010 “DK”