Civil Revision No. 1972 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1972 of 2008 Date of decision : 19.1.2010 Balwan ....Petitioner Versus Parkash Chand ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Akshay Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord had filed a petition, to obtain ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises, on plea of non-payment of rent and also personal bonafide necessity. It was also the plea that the petitioner-tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The Rent Controller held that arrears of rent for the period within limitation had been tendered and, thus, the ground of non-payment of rent was not available to the respondent. For want of evidence, the plea with regard to materially impairment of the premises was also declined. The plea for personal requirement, too, was also negatived by observing that the respondent himself is more than 60 years of age and his son, in company with whom he wanted to run a business, had engaged himself in another business and further that his another Civil Revision No. 1972 of 2008 -2- *** son is already in the business of sale of shoes since 1978. In appeal, however, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding on point of personal necessity. Insofar as the material impairment of the tenanted premises is concerned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent conceded before the learned Appellate Authority that he had not been able to prove it. No controversy was raised qua the finding of the payment of rent. The present controversy is, thus, confined to adjudication of the correctness or otherwise of the plea raised by the respondent for his requirement of tenanted premises for personal bonafide necessity. I find myself in complete agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Appellate Authority in upholding the plea raised by the respondent for ejectment of the petitioner from the tenanted premises on plea of personal bonafide necessity of the former. Though it may not be disputed that the landlord had retired in the year 1978 and he can safely be said to be at the 70 years of age, learned Appellate Authority very correctly noticed that there is no material on the file to prove that the health status of respondent was feeble or weak or that there was any physical handicap which could have impeded the running of business by the respondent. That respondent had two sons, is proved on record. In that context, it requires pertinent notice that the respondent had made a precise averment in the course of the petition that he would run a wholesale business of sale of shoes with his son Pawan Kumar who was Civil Revision No. 1972 of 2008 -3- *** unemployed. In the course of the corresponding para of the written statement, it was averred by the petitioner that the relations between the respondent and his (cnocerned) son are strained. The plea sought to be raised thereby was that there could be no possibility of father and (the concerned) son working together in view of their strained relationship. In the course of affidavit Ex. RW1/A, the petitioner had made an averment about strained relationship between the respondent and his sons. In the course of cross-examination he conceded that he had only 'heard' in the market that the respondent was not behaving well with his sons. The petitioner even went to the extent of indicating the information aforementioned had been furnished to him by Bir Singh, a Thakur by caste, who resides at an indicated place. Bir Sihgh Thakur aforementioned was not examined at the trial to corroborate the statement made by the tenant. His self serving statement cannot, thus, be said to be sufficient to upheld the plea. The view obtained by the learned Appellate Authority in reversing the relevant finding is in order and so also is reasoning indicated by it in the course thereof. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner-tenant is given one month time from today to vacate the premises under reference. January 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE