Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar And Others vs Gurcharan Kaur And Another on 16 May, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR No.2797 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.2797 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:16.05.2011.
Ashok Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Gurcharan Kaur and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The tenants are in revision against orders of the Courts below by which they have been asked to vacate the demised premises.
In short, one Kaur Singh let out the demised premises to one Prem Chand. The demised premises devolved upon Sarbag Singh after the death of Kaur Singh, who died during the pendency of the eviction petition and is replaced by his widow Gurcharan Kaur. The eviction was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent, ceased to occupy and personal necessity of Jagsir Singh son of Sarbag Singh. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition only on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady. This led to the filing of a statutory appeal by the tenant and cross-objection by the landlady in respect of the other grounds of eviction. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the cross-objection as well as the appeal filed by the tenant and maintained the order of eviction vide its order dated 21.01.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the requirement of the landlady should not be fanciful or it must be a need and not greed. He further submitted that Jagsir Singh did not enter the witness box to CR No.2797 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** depose about his necessity, therefore, the learned Courts below have committed an error in passing the order of eviction.
On the contrary, Gurcharan Kaur, who appeared as AW4, had projected the need of settling her son which has been rightly accepted by both the Courts below. Since no perversity in the appreciation of evidence has been brought forward, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned orders by this Court.
In view of the above, the revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs.
May 16, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge