The appellate court must independently examine the entire evidence on record to decide the material issues effectively between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral) - Petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed in Rent Appeal No.141 dated 31.03.2015, by Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby it has reversed the judgment of eviction passed by Rent Controller in Rent Case No.1643/2013 titled 'Smt. Renu Gupta and others Vs. M/s Pioneer Timber Products and another'.

2. The facts, in brief leading to the revision petition are that the petitioners filed eviction petition under Section 13, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of respondents from the premises bearing Industrial Plot No.662, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh. As per averments, the respondents were inducted as tenant in the year 1973 @ Rs.1500/- per month as rent apart from other charges, which was increased from time to time. In 1983, a rent petition was filed against the tenants and the same was withdrawn as the parties arrived at a compromise through the agreements dated 16.11.1984 and 06.12.1984. As per settlement, the tenants were to vacate the premises by 31.12.1999 and in case of the non-compliance, the rate of rent of the property was fixed as Rs.20,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2000. While giving details of other litigation between the parties, it was pleaded that the respondents applied for change of trade in respect of the plot in question before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, wherein they admitted the rate of rent as Rs.20,000/- per month. Finally, the landlord sought eviction of tenants on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 31.10.2008, as well as requirement of premises for their own use and occupation, because the date of vacating the premises bearing No. SCF 20, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh from where petitioner No.3 is presently carrying his business is drawing near i.e. in July, 2008.

3. The petition was contested by tenants by filing joint written statement, wherein they raised various preliminary objections relating to the maintainability, etc. and on merits, denied the material averments and grounds raised by the petitioners and contested the eviction petition by questioning the status of petitioners as landlord/owners. In the end, it was prayed that the eviction petition be dismissed.

4. The petitioners filed replication to the written statement in order to controvert their stand and reiterated the averments and prayer made in the eviction petition.

5. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh in all, framed nine issues and thereafter, the parties adduced their respective evidence. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh proceeded to decide the material issues in favour of petitioners and against the respondents and passed the judgment of eviction dated 11.03.2015.

6. Aggrieved against the said judgment of eviction, the respondents tenants preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, which has been accepted through impugned judgment dated 23.09.2022. Hence, this revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Rent Controller had examined the entire evidence on record while delivering findings on all the material issues in favour of the landlord and against the tenants while accepting the eviction petition, however, the Appellate Court has set aside the said judgment of eviction dated 11.03.2015 primarily on the ground that the property in question already stands resumed by Chandigarh Administration on 19.03.2002, and in the writ petition filed by tenants to challenge the resumption, their dispossession was stayed. He further submits that the Appellate Court is required to examine the entire evidence threadbare to arrive at a conclusion, if the findings returned in the impugned judgment passed by the Court of first instance is based upon incorrect appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel has argued that the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Author