Civil Revision No.2038 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2038 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.07.2011 Parshotam Lal Passi ....Petitioner Versus Raj Rani ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) C.M.No.17978-CII of 2011. C.M. is allowed and affidavit of the petitioner is taken on record. C.R.No.2038 of 2011 This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.4.2005 of Rent Controller vide which the eviction petition filed by the Raj Rani-respondent-landlady has been allowed by holding that the same is required by the respondent-landlord for her personal necessity and further the judgment dated 21.9.2010 whereby the appeal of the petitioner-tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to mention that respondent-landlady is an old lady of more than 70 years of age. After the Civil Revision No.2038 of 2011 (O&M) 2 death of her husband, she is residing with her daughter at Pathankot. She sold some property at Mukerian to return the money which she had borrowed for her husband's treatment and thereafter shifted to Pathankot with her daughter and thereafter, she kept on staying either at Pathankot with her daughter or at Jammu with her parents. She filed the instant petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner submitting that she requires the demised premises for her personal use and occupation as she wants to do some business for earning her livelihood. The aforesaid petition was contested by the petitioner stating that she is an old lady. She had shifted to Pathankot/Jammu long time back and thus, she does not need the premises and she is not capable of doing any business because of her advance age. Further she has sold some property which has not been mentioned, after the commencement of the Act and therefore she is not entitled to get vacated the demised premises and her bona fide need is not proved. Both the Courts below after having appreciated the evidence found that the demised premises are required for bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlady. Even it has come on record that the petitioner at one point of time has admitted that the respondent-landlady has no other shop except the demised shop and she did not vacate any shop within the Urban Area of Mukerian. She constructed a Chobara on the demised premises for her residence but she could not use that because there was a dispute between the parties for construction of stair case to approach the aforesaid Chobara. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has observed as under:- “ In this cross examination RW-1 Parshotam Lal admits that Civil Revision No.2038 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Raj Rani had to sell her residential house for the medical treatment of her husband who died 10/11 years back. RW1-Parshotam Lal also admits that when petitioner had sold her house she constructed a Chobara on the shop in dispute for her residence. RW1 admits that he did not permit the petitioner to construct stair case for reaching the Chobara because dispute arose between them. RW1-Patshotam Lal admits that petitioner does not own or possesses any other shop within the Municipal Limits of Mukerian nor she had vacated any other shop after the commencement of the Act. RW1- also admits that petitioner is unemployed and she had no source of livelihood except the old age pension. RW1-Patshotam Lal admits that petitioner does not own any other property movable or immovable within the Municipal Limits or M.C. Mukerian except the disputed shop.” In view of the aforesaid discussion and the findings of the Courts below, it can not be said that the findings of the Court below are based on conjectures and surmises, and therefore, warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that under its revisional jurisdiction, this Court will not substitute the findings of the Court below with its own findings. Dismissed. 29.7.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge