The High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition challenging the eviction order based on the landlord's proven claim of personal necessity due to retirement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.6829 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.11.2011
Ram Parsad
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Surinder Kumar
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 6.11.2009 of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar ordering his eviction and judgment dated 16.9.2011 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction.
Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the respondent-landlord while setting up the ground of personal necessity has specifically stated that the demised premises is required by him for personal use and occupation to supplement his needs after his retirement and also for the use of his daughters who will be doing the work of stitching in the premises in question.
C.R. No.6829 of 2011
2
In support of his submission, the respondent-landlord has also stepped into the witness box and reiterated the said version. There is nothing on record to contradict the requirement of the respondent-landlord for the use and occupation of the said property, though an attempt has been made before this Court by pointing out that the need of the respondent-landlord is not proved as the need set up by him with regard to his daughters has been denied by the daughters in cross-examination themselves.
Be that as it may, since the respondent-landlord has also set up a case for his need and there is no rebuttal to the aforesaid assertion of the respondent-landlord, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities below.
Dismissed.
November 08, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE
Ram Parsad
Surinder Kumar
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
