Civil Revision No.4343 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4343 of 2008 Date of decision: July 9, 2009. Jeet Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Kewal Krishan Malhotra ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri HNS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved at the orders dated 25.10.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Fatehgarh Sahib ordering his eviction from the demised premises, as well as dated 24.1.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above stated eviction order. The undisputed facts are that the demised premises is comprising a shop situate on the outer portion of a residential house in Kila Chowk, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib and it was rented out to the petitioner on a rent of Rs.170/- p.m. It appears that the respondent-landlord Civil Revision No.4343 of 2008 -: 2 :- has constructed five such like shops, out of which four were rented out whereas one shop at the corner was kept vacant. The respondent-landlord was in government service and has retired on superannuation on 31.12.2000. Thereafter, he filed the present eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, inter-alia, on the ground that he requires the subject shop for his own use and occupation as the same was adjacent to the already available vacant shop and he wanted to merge both the shops and convert into a garage for parking of his car. While deciding issue No.1, as to whether the demised premises is required by the respondent-landlord for his personal necessity?, the Rent Controller has categorically held that the respondent-landlord owns a car and the width of the street adjoining his house is not more than 12 feet. It has been further found that the size of the vacant shop is insufficient for parking of a car, therefore, the necessity of the respondent-landlord that he wants to convert two shops into a car garage for parking his car, has been held to be genuine and bona fide. The aforesaid finding of fact has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority also. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. The evidence on record does establish that the respondent- landlord owns a car and the width of the street is not sufficient for smooth movement of the vehicle nor a vehicle can be safely parked in a public street. It is not the case of the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord has rented out any shop after retirement and/or the necessity expressed by him is a desire only. It seems that the need of the respondent-landlord is bona fide. Civil Revision No.4343 of 2008 -: 3 :- Similarly, no case of either misreading and/or overlooking the evidence is made out. In these circumstances, in my considered view, no case for interference by a revisional court in the concurrent findings of fact returned by the courts below, is made out. Dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, however, is right in contending that since the petitioner is running his business activities from the last over 15 years, some reasonable period may be granted to him to find out an alternative accommodation. Learned counsel for the respondent also does not seriously oppose the same. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner-tenant shall hand over the vacant possession of the subject premises on or before 31.12.2009, subject to, however, payment of arrears of rent, if any, and future rent by the 10th day of the each calendar month. Dasti. July 09, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge