IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 126 CR-9064-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.12.2025 Sourabh Kumar Garg …..Pe44oner Vs. Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This revision challenges the concurrent orders of the Courts below confirming ejectment passed under Secon 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Evicon Act), 1973. 2. The landlord — Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, filed a peon for ejectment of the tenant, Shri Sourabh Kumar Garg (peoner herein), in respect of Shop No.7 on the ground of bona fide need (expansion of the langar/Satsang hall). The Rent Controller, Panipat, by order dated 21.02.2023 allowed the peon. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 17.11.2025, thereby affirming the ejectment. 3. Assailing the above orders, Learned counsel for the tenant raises two principal contenons: (i) the landlord has eight shops but has filed ejectment proceedings only in respect of five shops and not in respect of shops No.2, 3 and 4, which exposes the landlord’s move as enhancing rent rather than genuine necessity; and (ii) the peon was instuted through Shri Gurdarshan Singh Khera, who, it is alleged, was not authorised to represent the landlord-society and, therefore, the peon was not NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.10 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9064-2025 (O&M) -2- maintainable. 4. I have carefully examined the paper book besides the site-plan (Annexure-P3) & the photograph (Annexure-P4) and the findings recorded by the Courts below. 5. The record discloses that the landlord-society produced its Registraon Cerficate (Ex.P1) and a resoluon dated 10.06.2017 (Ex.P2) authorising Shri Gurdarshan Singh to act on behalf of the society. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have accepted these documents as proof of authority. A society duly registered and acng through an authorised representave may instute and prosecute proceedings. A resoluon which confers broad authority to represent the society in ligaon is sufficient unless the tenant demonstrates that the authority was fraudulently obtained or otherwise invalid. 6. No such evidence has been produced by the peoner. The argument that the resoluon does not refer specifically to these ejectment peons is a technical objecon, which cannot prevail when the resoluon confers general authority to instute and conduct ligaon on behalf of the society and when the representave has in fact acted pursuant to that resoluon. 7. In this factual seAng, the Courts below have correctly held that the peon was maintainable and that the representave was duly authorised. The technicality urged by the tenant’s counsel does not viate the proceedings. 8. Coming to the plea of bona fide necessity, the tenant’s principal factual submission is that since ejectment proceedings were not filed in respect of shops No.2, 3 and 4, the landlord’s professed need to expand the langar/Satsang hall cannot be bona fide necessity. This argument assumes that a legimate requirement to expand must always be NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.10 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9064-2025 (O&M) -3- pursued by proceeding against every conguous unit. However, said approach is neither a requirement of law nor compelled by logic. 9. The site-plan (Annexure-P3) & the photograph (Annexure-P4) show that the shops are located at the rear of the langar/Satsang hall and that the principal entry to the ground floor, basement and kitchen lies to the right side of shop No.8. Ejectment peons have been filed in respect of shops No.1 and 4 to 8 and ejectment orders have already been passed in regarding these shops. The appeals in respect of shops No.7 and 8 have already been dismissed. If the occupants of shops No.4 to 8 vacate, the landlord will be in a posion to secure conguous space adequate for the projected expansion. 10. The Courts below have recorded evidence that the available accommodaon is inadequate to accommodate the sangat/followers for religious purposes and that expansion is required. Where the purpose is for bona fide religious and community use, urban constraints and the availability of specific conguous premises are material consideraons. It is well within the landlord’s prerogave to determine how best to use its property for legimate needs; and the tenants cannot dictate the manner of ulisaon so long as the landlord’s need is bona fide and proved on the evidence. 11. The fact that separate peons are not pressed in respect of every shop in the complex does not by itself demonstrate mala fides. The landlord may pursue evicon in stages as tenancies fall due or as space becomes necessary; praccal, logiscal and financial consideraons may dictate the sequence of proceedings. In the absence of evidence of collusion, sham or pretext, the mere selecve iniaon of proceedings is insufficient to displace the finding of bona fide necessity. 12. Further, the scope of this Court’s supervisory jurisdicon in NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.10 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9064-2025 (O&M) -4- revision is limited. Concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority are entled to due weight, where they rest upon a considered appreciaon of documentary and oral evidence. 13. In the present case, the Courts below have examined the site- plan, photographs and the landlord’s evidence regarding inadequacy of space and requirement for expansion for langar/Satsang purposes. They have considered the authorizaon documents (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) and have recorded reasons for accepng the landlord’s case. There is nothing on the record to show that the appreciaon of evidence was perverse, illegal, or viated by misreading of material evidence. 14. Conclusion : For the reasons recorded above, no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent orders of ejectment. The contenon as to want of authority of Shri Gurdarshan Singh is rejected. The contenon that the landlord’s plea is a device to enhance rent is not substanated by the evidence. Resultantly, the revision peon is dismissed. All miscellaneous applicaons, if any, stand disposed of. Pares to bear their respecve costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE December 09, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.10 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document