Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.12.2008 Gopal Singh …Petitioner Versus Rajinder Pal (dead) through his legal representatives ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, eviction petition was preferred by Rajinder Pal, who died during the pendency of proceedings and is now represented by his legal representatives, namely Kaushal Kishore Attri, Neena and Parmod. The eviction petition was filed stating therein that Satpal Singh, father of Gopal Singh, Nain Pal Singh and Arjan Singh was tenant. He had died, therefore, respondents No.1 to 3 to the eviction petition had inherited the tenancy. It is sated that the shop described and detailed in the eviction petition was rented out on rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The rent has been paid in the Court. Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 2 In the ejectment petition, grounds of non-payment of rent, and change of two girders on the ground floor, without the written or oral consent of the landlord, amounted to changing the utility of the premises, were taken. It was further stated that roof has been changed. Third ground taken was that the premises are required for personal necessity and lastly the ground which has been found with the two Courts below is that the premises were lying closed since 1997 and the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises four months before the filing of the eviction petition. A written statement was filed in which it was stated that their father Satpal Singh was the tenant. He had executed a will on 8.2.1996 in their favour, therefore, they have inherited the tenancy. The rate of rent was admitted. Rest of the grounds were denied. Replication was filed in which the averments made in the eviction petition were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied. The Court of learned Rent Controller had drawn the following issues:- 1. Whether the tender made is short and invalid? OPA 2. Whether the respondents had changed the value and utility of demised premises? OPA 3. Whether the petitioner require the premises for his own personal necessity? OPA 3A. Whether the shop in dispute is lying Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 3 closed/locked or not? OPA 4. Relief. Since the landlord has died, his son K.K.Attri appeared as PW.1, and examined Bhagwant Singh as PW2, Prem Singh as PW.3 and Upkardeep Kaur as PW.4. Tenant himself had not appeared but examined two witnesses namely Vinod Kumar as RW.1 and Jaswant Singh as RW.2. Ground of non payment of rent was not pressed, therefore, no finding has been given by the Courts below. Regarding change of user and the two girders, landlord was not believed. It was held that landlord has not discharged the necessary onus to prove this issue. The eviction petition was filed by Rajinder Pal on the ground of personal necessity. Since he has died during the pendency of petition, a plea was raised by his son K.K.Attri that he required the shop for his personal necessity. The Court of learned Rent Controller upheld the personal necessity of K.K.Attri. The Court also believed that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. It took into consideration the statement of DW.2 Jaswant Singh and in his cross-examination, he has stated that Gopal Singh, petitioner to the present revision petition, had left India about five years ago and had gone abroad. He further stated that the family of Gopal Singh had also gone to Canada. He further stated that he had gone abroad and came back to India about two years ago and he came to India only for ten days. It further noticed the fact that other two brothers of Gopal Singh are settled abroad. The three sons of Satpal Singh, who had inherited the tenancy, are admittedly well settled Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 4 abroad. A plea was raised that the demised shop was opened sometimes by their servant or nephew. This averment was not relied upon by learned Rent Controller. Learned Appellate Authority concurred with this finding that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises, therefore, the ground of personal necessity was reversed. Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, stated that the testimony of DW.1 Vinod Kumar and DW.2 Jaswant Singh should have been believed in totality and a grave error has been committed by learned Rent Controller to dissect their statements and to hold that they are partly reliable and partly unreliable. This argument cannot be accepted. Landlord has categorically stated that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises. All the three sons of Satpal Singh who had inherited the tenancy are well settled abroad. They have migrated along with their families, therefore, this part of the testimony of tenants' evidence corroborated the version projected by the landlord. Where the blemish has occurred that nephew or servant used to open the shop sometimes has been rightly ignored. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the concurrent finding of fact arrived by the two Courts below. The view formulated by the two Courts below is the one view which is possible. Therefore, no interference is warranted while exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Thapar has stated that two months time be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. In case petitioner furnish Civil Revision No. 6962 of 2008 5 an undertaking before learned Rent Controller that peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises shall be handed over to the landlord, period of two months shall be granted. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 17, 2008 “DK”