IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4233 of 2009 Date of decision: 26th November, 2010 Bhola … Petitioner Versus Swaran Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The eviction petition was instituted on two grounds. Firstly, the tenant was in arrears of rent from the month of October 2004 till filing of the eviction petition and secondly, the shop in question was required for personal use and occupation for settling three sons of the landlord, namely Kulwant Singh, Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh, who were unemployed. It was stated that Kulwant Singh was well versed with the work of embroidery of shawls and clothes, and the said business was to be conducted from the shop in question. In front of the residential house of the respondent-landlord, two shops were built, out of which one was rented-out to the petitioner and the other to one Palwinder Singh. It is the case of the respondent-landlord that both the shops were required for settling his three unemployed sons. Civil Revision No.4233 of 2009 In the written statement filed, the petitioner-tenant took a stand that four shops had been constructed by the landlord and there was no personal need of the landlord. Instead he only intended to increase the rent and the eviction petition was filed since the tenant had not yielded to the demand of the landlord to increase the rent. After conclusion of pleadings, the Rent Controller, Amritsar formulated the following issues: “1) Whether the rate of the demised premises is Rs.600/- p.m.? OPP 2) Whether the petitioner requires the shop bonafidely for his self need and use and occupation of his sons? OPP 3) Whether the respondent has paid rent upto 10.11.05? OPR 4) Whether the present application has been filed with the malafide intention to enhance the rent? 5) Relief.” The Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the rent was not Rs.600/- per month but was Rs.300/- per month. He also ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he was in arrears of rent from 17th November, 2006. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence led by the parties, came to a conclusion that personal necessity of the landlord is proved, and ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant on both counts. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner-tenant filed an appeal. The appellate authority reversed the finding returned by the Rent Controller regarding non-payment of rent by holding that the arrears of rent have been paid to the landlord in another eviction petition. However, 2 Civil Revision No.4233 of 2009 the finding regarding personal necessity was affirmed. The appellate authority observed as under: “19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and above said citations. The main contention of the appellant is that the landlord now respondent has another two shops vacant in the same property but landlord now respondent has denied the same. Appellant is relying only on the oral evidence that too of its own whereas the landlord now respondent has placed on record one site plan Ex.A/2 in which there was only two shops and others were rooms. The appellant has not even dared to place on record the counter site plan. Moreover, it is settled law that the rent controller cannot dictate the landlord as to which property suits him if landlord is proved bonafide. The oral evidence brought by the landlord now respondent has duly corroborated the version of landlord now respondent. In the light of my above discussion, citations and evidence on record, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the finding of learned lower Court on issue No.2. As such, the finding of learned lower Court on issue No.2 is upheld.” Ms. Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, has stated that the landlord admitted in his cross- examination that his sons were doing the work of Pathi (those who recite the holy book, Sri Guru Granth Sahib) and thus, it is stated that the words of the landlord that Kulwant Singh is well versed with the work of embroidery cannot be accepted, and hence the personal necessity of the landlord is not made out. One, who knows embroidery, can also recite scriptures and it cannot be held that on this ground, he is to be denied to run his own shop of embroidery. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that the premises is required by the landlord for settling his 3 Civil Revision No.4233 of 2009 three unemployed sons. This Court will not tread on the path of re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. Apparently, there is no misreading of the evidence. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 26, 2010 rps 4