CR-4911-20



IN THE H 102 Gurparkash S Balbir Chand CORAM: H PRESENT: NIDHI GUP 1. counsel filed 2. petitioner se P-1) passed Patiala in R impleading t by the respo Restriction A dismissed. 3. follows:- 03.07.2017 eviction of t fide necessit 2025 (O&M)



HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR rkash Singh Versus Chand M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH ENT: Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Advoc I GUPTA, J. Fresh Vakalatnama with ‘no filed on behalf of the petitioner is tak The present second revision p seeking setting aside of the order assed by the learned Additional Ci in Review Petition No. 54/2017, ding the applicants as respondents in respondent under Section 13(4) of ction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred Brief facts of the case in c 2017: Respondent-Balbir Chand had of the petitioner from the demised cessity.




& HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4911-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.02.2026 ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA Advocate for the petitioner. th ‘no objection’ from previous r is taken on record. sion petition has been filed by the order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure nal Civil Judge (Senior Division), , whereby the application for ents in the main Rent Petition filed 4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent eferred to as-‘the Act’), has been in chronological order are as d had filed rent petition seeking mised shop on the ground of bona ious the xure ion), for filed ent een RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.06 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4911-20



12.02.2015 allowed by t ordered to be 06.08.2015 against the Appellate Au 24.08.2015 Civil Revis Predecessor statement/ u only afforde as he does n 31.5.2016: be delivered 03.07.2017: Section 13( restoration o 24.09.2024 dated 24.09. Patiala, for i in the afores the Act. 24.04.2025 abovesaid a dismissed. 2025 (O&M)



2015: Vide order dated 12.02.2015 d by the learned Rent Controller, Pat d to be evicted from the demised shop 2015: Being aggrieved, the petitione t the order dated 12.02.2015; which late Authority, vide judgment and orde 2015: Against the order dated 06.08.2 Revision No. 5244-2015 which essor Bench vide order dated 24.08.2 / undertaking given by the petition orded a period of nine months to va es not wish to press the petition on m Consequently, the possession of ivered to the respondent on 31.05.2016 2017: Thereafter, the petitioner mo 13(4) of the Act dated 03.07. tion of possession of the demised shop 2024: Subsequently, the petitioner m 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-5) before th , for impleading the children of respo aforesaid application (Annexure P-4) 5: Vide the impugned order dated said application (Annexure P-5)




.2015, the said rent petition was er, Patiala; and the petitioner was d shop. titioner had filed a Rent Appeal which was also dismissed by the d order dated 06.08.2015. 6.08.2015, the petitioner had filed hich was disposed of by the 4.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) on the petitioner that ‘…the petitioner be to vacate the demised premises, on merits.’ of the demised shop came to 5.2016. er moved an application under 03.07.2017 (Annexure P-4) for d shop to the petitioner. ner moved the instant application fore the learned Rent Controller, f respondent-Balbir Singh as party 4) filed under Section 13(4) of dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), of the petitioner has been RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.06 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4911-20



4. petitioner tha the applicati respondent demised sho respondents learned Ren demised sho 2 to 5 in ord of the learn respondents the transfer o is according impugned or 5. heard learne merit in the s 6. learned Ren petitioner fo to the applic 13(4) of the the ground t landlord of t 2025 (O&M)



It is, inter alia, submitted b ner that the learned Rent Controller, P plication (Annexure P-5) filed for im dent-Balbir Singh as, it failed to co ed shop has admittedly been delive dents No. 2 to 5 by the respondent h d Rent Controller has lost sight of th ed shop has been transferred in favour in order to defeat the right of the peti learned Rent Controller, to the ef dents are not liable to be impleaded nsfer of possession of demised shop t ordingly prayed that the present revis ned order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure No other argument is raised on learned counsel and carefully gone th in the submissions advanced on behalf Vide impugned order dated 24 Rent Controller, Patiala, had reje ner for impleading the children of the application dated 03.07.2017 (Annex of the Act for restoration of the posse ound that the said proposed responde rd of the petitioner. I find no error in t




itted by learned counsel for the oller, Patiala has erred in dismissing for impleading the children of sole consider that the possession of delivered to the children/proposed dent herein. It is submitted that the t of the fact that possession of the favour of proposed respondents No. e petitioner. Thus, the observations the effect that the said proposed leaded as party respondents despite shop to them is totally erroneous. It t revision petition be allowed; and nexure P-1), be set aside. ised on behalf of petitioner. I have one through the case file. I find no behalf of petitioner. 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), the d rejected the application of the of the respondent herein as parties (Annexure P-4) filed under Section possession of the demised shop, on spondents No. 2 to 5 were not the ror in the said reasoning of the Rent the sing sole n of osed t the the No. ions osed pite It and ave no , the the rties on , on the ent RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.06 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4911-20



Controller as Balbir Chan only vide T petitioner 31.05.2016 proposed res 7. contained in (Annexure P 2025 (O&M)



ller as it is undisputed fact on record Chand had transferred the demised s vide Transfer Deed dated 14.10.202 ner was evicted from the demised 2016. Therefore, the petitioner was sed respondents No. 2 to 5. The relevant reasoning of the ned in para Nos. 6 and 7 of the impu xure P-1), reads as follows:- “6 As per Section 13(4) of obtain possession of a rented b of an order, does not himself o obtained by him for his family, residential house, or if possess his son does not occupy it, fo months from the date of obtai puts building to any use or lets tenant who was evicted may a restoration of possession of said 7. In the present case, und the landlord of applicant Gurb of eviction dated 12.02.2015 w Singh then tenant, the applic Chand, the landlord. It is also case, that Balbir Chand the shop in favour of his sons and dated 14.10.2022. But mere t implead said persons, as part Although as per averments of said persons have become the o




record that the respondent/landlord- ised shop in favour of his children .10.2022; whereas admittedly, the emised shop as far as back on er was never a tenant under the the learned Rent Controller, as e impugned order dated 24.04.2025 ) of Rent Act, “where a landlord ted building or land in pursuance elf occupy it, or if possession was ily, his family does not occupy the session was obtained for his son, it, for a continuous period of 12 obtaining possession, or landlord lets it out to any other tenant, the ay apply to the Controller for the f said rented building/land.” , undisputedly Balbir Chand was urbaksh Singh and that the order 15 was passed against Gurbaksh plicant and in favour of Balbir lso undisputed fact in the present the landlord has transferred the and daughters, vide transfer deed re this fact, is not sufficient to party in the present application. ts of applicant Gurbakhsh Singh, the owners of property in question dren the on the , as 025 rd ce as he , 12 rd he he as er sh ir nt he ed to n. h, on RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.06 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4911-20



8. Civil Revisio 9. 27.02.2026 rishu 2025 (O&M)



but they never remained his question was rented out by Ba order was passed in his favou property was delivered to Balbi depicted from the facts and re there is no ground to implead the sons and the daughters o present case. Moreover, it i applicant that the landlord property vide order of Court Therefore, the application in devoid of any merits” As such, I find no error in the evision Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable




his landlord. The property in Balbir Chand only and eviction avour and the possession of said albir Chand the landlord only, as d record available on file. Thus ead the transfrees of property I.e. rs of Balbir Chand as party in it is yet to be established by ord obtained the possession of ourt on the basis of false facts. in hand stands dismissed being in the impugned order. The present any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No in on id as us .e. in by of ts. ng sent RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.06 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.