Amarpal @ Amarpal Singh vs Sunil Sharma And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 15489 P&H

Civil Revision No.2808-2022                                     1

110
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                         Civil Revision No.2808-2022 (O&M)
                                         Date of Decision: 01.12.2022

Amarpal @ Amanpal Singh
                                                                .. Petitioner
             Vs.

Sunil Sharma and others
                                                              ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:     Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
                              ...
Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral)

Petitioner-Amarpal @ Amanpal Singh has filed this revision

petition to challenge the judgment dated 13.05.2022 passed by the appellate

Court, Tarn Taran, whereby the judgment of eviction dated 04.09.2017

passed by the Rent Controller, Tarn Taran upon a petition filed by

respondent-landlord (Sunil Sharma), was upheld.

Learned counsel has argued that the petition for eviction filed

by landlord was based upon the grounds of non-payment of rent from April,

2014 to September, 2014 as well as bona fide requirement for personal use

and occupation of the shop in question and the tenants have been evicted by

accepting the ground of personal necessity raised by the landlord. He

submits that during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate

authority, the demised premises was vacated on 28.12.2017 pursuant to the

execution filed by the landlord, as no interim protection was granted by the

appellate authority in favour of the tenants. He submits that though the first

appeal has been dismissed on merits vide impugned judgment dated

13.05.2022, but the demised premises has not been utilized by the landlord

1 of 2

for the purpose set up in the eviction petition to seek eviction of the tenants.

He submits that as per the pleadings, the landlord wanted to start the

business of Handloom, but presently, the property in question is being used

as a temple. He submits that on this sole ground, the petitioner seeks

indulgence of this Court by exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

fairly states that the rest of the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and

upheld by appellate authority are not being questioned.

After hearing the learned counsel and considering the argument

raised, this Court is of the opinion that the argument relating to the non-

utilization of the property for the purpose for which the eviction of the

tenant was sought was not raised before the appellate authority. Though at

different stages, three applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for

leading additional evidence were filed by the tenants.

Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain this argument,

particularly when it is not the case of the tenants that after getting the shop

vacated from the tenant, it has been let out to some other person.

No other argument was raised.

Resultanly, no case is made out for exercising the revisional

jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

                                                          (MANOJ BAJAJ)
01.12.2022                                                   JUDGE
Jasmine Kaur




                Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes No
                Whether reportable                      Yes No




                                   2 of 2