JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the judgments dated 08.03.2017 and 16.04.2018 passed by the Courts below whereby an eviction petition filed against the petitioners qua the demised premises that is situated on the first floor portion forming part of shop No.B-IV-299, Bazaar Sarafan, Ludhiana was allowed on the ground of personal necessity of respondents-landlord.

2. Briefly stating, the respondents-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant qua the demised premises i.e. the first floor portion forming part of shop No.B-IV-299, Bazaar Sarafan, Ludhiana, on the ground of his own personal necessity besides that of his son Ashwani Handa who has been running a jewellery shop on the ground floor of the aforementioned property. The petitioner-tenant disputed the bona fide need of the respondents-landlords by filing detailed written statement.

3. The Ld. Rent Controller vide judgment dated 08.03.2017 allowed the eviction petition filed at the instance of respondents-landlord passing orders of eviction against the petitioner-tenant. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed First Appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 16.04.2018.

4. Impugning the aforementioned judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire finding has been recorded by the Courts below by relying upon the affidavit of PW5-Ashwani Handa which was not even tendered in the evidence before the Rent Controller and thus the same could not have been read as a piece of evidence in support of eviction petition. For the said purpose, reliance has been placed upon sections 3 and 137 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 as well as Order 18, Rule 4 CPC 1908. Learned counsel further submits that though the said witness was cross-examined, however, in the absence of his affidavit, having been tendered before the Court, the cross-examination was required to be struck off. Learned counsel also submits that the First Appellate Court failed to take judicial notice of the subsequent events which occurred during pendency of the eviction proceedings whereby one shop situated on the third floor of the premises in question was vacated by the tenant namely Ravinder Kumar and the same was occupied by the Lovish Handa who happens to be the son of Ashwani Handa.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-landlords submits that once PW5-Ashwani Handa was cross-examined at length by the petitioner-tenant through his counsel, no such Objection qua this affidavit in affrimative could have been raised now at the revisional stage. He also relies upon the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority wherein it has been categorically recorded that the petitioner-tenant owns different commercial properties at different places in Ludhiana and thus the order of eviction passed by the authorities below does not warrant any interference. Learned counsel further places reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "Rasiklal Manichchand Dhariwal and Anr. v. M/s. M.S.S. Food Products 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 307".

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. For the purpose of dealing with the proposition argued on behalf of the petitioner it would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the definition of evidence as laid down under sections 3 and 137 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 as well as Order 18, Rule 4 (1) CPC:-

"3. Interpretation-clause.- In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless