RSA-2746- IN THE HI 261 Paramjit Sin The Gill Agr CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. concurrent j whereby the plaintiff was 2. was listed fo -2023 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H RSA Date o jit Singh Versus ill Agri Multi Purpose Co-operative So M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. NK Vadehra, Advocate for I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant-appellant is in rrent judgments and decrees rendered by the suit for possession and recov was decreed. On the last date of hearing i.e sted for hearing, following order has be “It is submitted by learne plaintiff that in a similar matt shop, the second appeal bearin as ‘Jaspal Singh vs. The Cooperative Society Ltd.’, ha ordinate Bench of this Court 07.07.2025. Copy of the afores 07.07.2025, handed over in Co respondent is taken on record. It is further submitted respondent-plaintiff that the p covered by the ratio of afor 07.07.2025. There is no representatio despite the case having been position on the last date of hear In the interest of justice, a ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2746-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 .… Appellant tive Society Ltd. .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA ocate for the appellant. ate for the respondent. is in second appeal against the ndered by both the District Courts recovery filed by the respondent- ing i.e. 08.01.2026, when this case has been passed by this Court:- arned counsel for the respondent- matter in respect of an adjoining earing No. RSA-2231-2025, titled The gill Agri Multi Purpose, , has been dismissed by a co- ourt vide judgment/order dated oresaid judgment/order dated Court by learned counsel for the rd. tted by learned counsel for the e present second appeal is fully aforesaid judgment/order dated tation on behalf of the appellant, een called twice. Similar is the hearing i.e. 01.12.2023. ice, adjourned to 30.03.2026. the urts case ng ed se, ed ed he he lly ed nt, he RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.02 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2746- 3. that the pre 07.07.2025, that the pre Judgment da -2023 (O&M) -2- Registry to inform learn about the date fixed.”
Today, learned counsel appear he present appeal is covered by t 2025, passed by a co-ordinate Bench he present second appeal be dispo ent dated 07.07.2025, passed in RSA “Defendant of the suit present Regular Second App findings of the Courts below. 2. Though notice of motion case, but Mr. N.K. Vadhe appearance and filed his powe respondent. 3. Heard. It is not disput herein) is owner of the sho defendant (appellant herein) Plaintiff filed the suit submitti dated 23.04.2015, Avtar Singh a initiate the proceedings for defendant and consequent t 13.05.2015 was served upon society required the shop for resisted the suit on the ground the shop; that they wanted to le and that he (defendant) was reg 4. Trial Court decreed the findings have been affirmed by 07.05.2025. 5. Assailing the concurrent learned counsel that plaintiff- bona fide necessity and therefo for ordering the ejectment. 6. There is merit in the con filed under the provisions of requirements of bona fide pers the landlord are required to be possession based upon title, f Transfer of Property Act and as the plaintiff-respondent to pr vacation of the demised shop. 7. After going through th Courts below, this Court does n any interference therein as the on proper appreciation of evide earned counsel for the appellant appearing for the appellant submits by the ratio of judgment dated ench in RSA-2231-2025 and prays disposed of, in the same terms. RSA-2231-2025, reads as under:- suit is before this Court in the Appeal against the concurrent otion has not been issued in this adhera, Advocate, has put in ower of attorney on behalf of the isputed that plaintiff (respondent shop in question, wherein the in) was inducted as the tenant. mitting that by way of resolution ngh and others were authorised to for vacation of the shop from nt thereto, legal notice dated pon the defendant, as plaintiff- for its own purposes. Defendant und that plaintiff did not require to let it out on higher rate of rent; s regularly paying the rent. the suit on 18.12.2017 and the d by the First Appellate Court on rrent findings, it is contended by tiff-respondent could not prove its erefore, there was no justification e contention. It was not a petition of Rent Act, whereunder, strict personal necessity on the part of o be proved. It was a case seeking le, filed under the provisions of nd as such, it was not required for prove any legal necessity for h the judgments passed by the es not find any ground calling for s the same are found to be based vidence available on record. nt mits ated rays rms. he nt is in he nt he nt. on m ed nt ire nt; he on by its on on ict of ng of or for he or ed RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.02 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2746- 4. 5. disposed of 2231-2025 6. 30.03.2026 rishu -2023 (O&M) -3- 8. As such, holding the pr any merit, the same is hereby di Heard. In view of the facts noted above ed of, in terms of judgment dated , reproduced above. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable e present appeal to be devoid of by dismissed.” above, the present second appeal is dated 07.07.2025, passed in RSA- any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No of al is RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.02 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.