IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2805 of 2009 Date of decision:18.05.2009 Banarasi Lal Chhabra ...Petitioner versus Sanjay Kumar Gupta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Hemender Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioner. ----- 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 landlord's action for eviction was founded on the personal requirement among other grounds. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have found favour with the landlord granting him the relief of recovery of possession. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the landlord was a purchaser from his previous landlord and he had taken action for eviction nearly a year after the purchase; if there had been a dire need for his property he would have taken action immediately. His further contention was that even apart from the shop in his possession measuring 11 x 23, there was yet another portion of the property immediately Civil Revision No.2805 of 2009 - 2 - adjoining it in the dimension of 12 x 23 and that property was still remaining vacant and that he has not put the other property in occupation and that it is remaining vacant. 3. It has been the contention of the landlord that he was intending to open a show room and the property that was still remaining vacant was not adequate and that he required the tenant's premises also for his occupation. It cannot be therefore stated that the landlord was not bona fide in his requirements, for an explanation has been offered by the landlord for keeping the other room in his premises vacant. Even the contention that the landlord has no dire need of the premises since he waited nearly a year cannot be taken to be sound, for it cannot be expected that a person who purchased the property would immediately file a petition to express his bona fides. A litigation for any normal person is the last resort and if the landlord had filed a petition a year after the purchase, that is nothing unnatural about such a conduct. Before the trial Court and the Appellate Court, another attempt was also made that the landlord was residing in Chhachhrauli and the business of premises was at Yamuna Nagar. The Courts below referred to the distance between the two places as not merely 15 K.M. and it was not difficult for a landlord to establish his business within such a proximity from his place of residence. All the relevant factors that have to go into consideration for a decision have been properly addressed by the authorities below and there is no scope for taking a different view. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. Time for eviction two months on condition that the tenant pays rent without any default during the said Civil Revision No.2805 of 2009 -3 - period and if there is any default, the time granted shall immediately abate and the landlord will be liable to obtain eviction forthwith in the manner known to law. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.05.2009 sanjeev