Civil Revision No. 5746 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5746 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.9.2010 Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus Poonam Kundal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The respondent/landlady has filed an eviction petition to cause ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises on the following grounds:- A) The premises is required by the respondent/landlady for personal use and occupation in order to settle her son Shivanshu, who had passed 10+2 examination and now at present he is a student of M.B.B.S. B) The tenant has failed to pay the rent of the demised premises for the period commencing from May 2005 till the filing of the eviction petition. The rent was claimed at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. The Rent Controller, Patiala, has relied upon the cross- examination of the petitioner, who appeared as RW.1 and observed that he admitted his signatures on the rent note Ex.A1. He also admitted that Civil Revision No. 5746 of 2010 2 the rent note Ex.A1 was executed by him regarding the demised shop. The tenant had raised a plea that infact the rent note was created to save the husband of respondent/landlady from the income-tax proceedings, but there was an oral agreement between them. The tenant had failed to prove this fact as in support whereof he had not produced even a single document. Furthermore, the Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the plea of oral agreement between the husband of the respondent/landlady and the petitioner/tenant is not reliable. The Rent Controller has also placed reliance upon the testimony of AW.2 S.C. Khurana to hold that the rent note Ex.A1 indeed was executed. Since May 2005, the petitioner has not paid even a single penny. After the provisional rent was assessed, the petitioner has neither tendered rent nor paid interest or cost. It was rightly held by the Rent Controller that due to non payment of rent, the petitioner was to be evicted. This finding has been concurred by the Appellate Authority, Patiala, as well. Both the Courts below, after appreciation of the evidence, have rightly held that the ground of personal necessity is also made out. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, shall not tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 8, 2010 “DK”