Civil Revision No. 6024 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6024 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.9.2010 Deep Kiran and Others …Petitioners Versus Sunita Jain …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioners have assailed the findings of both the Courts below, whereby their eviction from the demised premises has been caused on the ground that personal necessity of the landlord is made out. The respondent/landlady has filed the eviction petition on the following grounds:- A) The petitioners were in arrears of rent. B) The petitioners have impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. C) The demised premises were required for personal use and occupation of the respondent/landlady as she was fed up with the hectic life of Delhi, suffered huge loss in the cloth business at Delhi and intended to run the said business at Karnal. Civil Revision No. 6024 of 2010 2 Both the Courts below have held that since the tenants had tendered the rent, the ground of non-payment of rent was foregone by the landlady. Both the Courts below have further come to the conclusion that by constructing a bath room, kitchen and making a partition in one hall, the utility and value of the building has not been impaired. However, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that there is merit in the plea raised by the landlady that the demised premises is required for her personal use and occupation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no account books and balance sheet have been proved on the record to corroborate the assertion that husband of the landlady/respondent indeed had suffered a loss in the business. Furthermore, the landlady, till now, has made no attempt to start the business at Karnal. Both these arguments were considered by the Courts below who gave the concurrent finding that the landlady had proved this ground and it was not for him to prove, in exact terms, the loss suffered. They have also accepted the plea of the landlady that she wanted to shift to Karnal as the hectic life of Delhi is not conducive to their old age. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. A finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 17, 2010 “DK”