CR No.3119 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 190 KAMLESH RANI Vs PARMA NAND AND ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. for HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present petition challenge has been laid to dated 30.03.2015 11.05.2012 rendered by the thereby resulting into dismissal of the eviction petition filed at the instance of petitioner-landlady 2. Brie owner of shop forming part of three storied building ‘demised shop’) sale deeds dated 27.04.1991 a ground of arrears of rent; property being unfit and unsafe of human habitation well as on the ground of same being required for namely Sunny Kapoor. of Rs.825/- per month. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: KAMLESH RANI ...... PARMA NAND AND ANR ....Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present petition challenge has been laid to 30.03.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the decision dated 11.05.2012 rendered by the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur stands reversed thereby resulting into dismissal of the eviction petition filed at the instance of landlady. Briefly stating, the petitioner-landlady while claiming herself to be owner of shop forming part of three storied building shop’) situated on the Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur; based on registered sale deeds dated 27.04.1991 and 20.11.1991 sought eviction of respondents on the ground of arrears of rent; property being unfit and unsafe of human habitation on the ground of same being required for namely Sunny Kapoor. As per pleadings the tenancy started in July, 1988 @ rent per month. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3119 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.05.2025 ......Petitioner ....Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA By way of present petition challenge has been laid to the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the decision dated Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur stands reversed thereby resulting into dismissal of the eviction petition filed at the instance of landlady while claiming herself to be owner of shop forming part of three storied building (hereinafter referred to as situated on the Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur; based on registered nd 20.11.1991 sought eviction of respondents on the ground of arrears of rent; property being unfit and unsafe of human habitation on the ground of same being required for bona fide necessity of her son tenancy started in July, 1988 @ rent 1 judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the decision dated Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur stands reversed thereby resulting into dismissal of the eviction petition filed at the instance of landlady while claiming herself to be (hereinafter referred to as situated on the Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur; based on registered nd 20.11.1991 sought eviction of respondents on the ground of arrears of rent; property being unfit and unsafe of human habitation as necessity of her son tenancy started in July, 1988 @ rent MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 3. Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed written statement controverting the pleadings set up by the petitioner one of the shop in the building was in submitted that demised premises was fit for human habitation. to bona fide need in the year 2006 New Delhi was employed required by him shop in question tendered before the learned Rent Controller. 4. Based on the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller vide its decision dated 11.05.2012 ordered eviction of the respondents on the ground of building human habitation landlady for his 5. Aggrieved thereof, respondent No.1 filed first appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be a holding that the building in question bona fide need qua son of petitioner was not established on record present petition was filed at the hands of petitio 6. It may be pointed out here that the respondents having tendered arrears of rent before the learned Rent Controller by the petitioner 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the son of petitioner having graduated besides done DJ course from the (O&M) Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed written statement controverting the pleadings set up by the petitioner one of the shop in the building was in occupation of petitioner herself and it was submitted that demised premises was fit for human habitation. need of son of the petitioner-landlady, it was 6 and passed DJ course from the was employed; well settled and as such the by him and as such the need expressed by the petitioner shop in question was not bona fide. With respect to arrears of tendered before the learned Rent Controller. Based on the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller vide its decision dated 11.05.2012 ordered eviction of the respondents on the ground of building in question being unfit and unsafe for human habitation besides the demised shop being required by the s personal use. Aggrieved thereof, respondent No.1 filed first appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be allowed vide order dated 30.03.2015 while holding that the building in question was fit for human habitation, however need qua son of petitioner was not established on record present petition was filed at the hands of petitioner It may be pointed out here that the respondents having tendered rent before the learned Rent Controller by the petitioner-landlady during the first appeal filed by the respondents Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the son of petitioner having graduated besides done DJ course from the Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed written statement thereby controverting the pleadings set up by the petitioner-landlady while submitting that occupation of petitioner herself and it was submitted that demised premises was fit for human habitation. Further with respect landlady, it was pleaded that he graduated the ‘Spin Guru’ of Greater Kailash, well settled and as such the demised shop was not as such the need expressed by the petitioner-landlady qua the With respect to arrears of rent, the same were Based on the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller vide its decision dated 11.05.2012 ordered eviction of the question being unfit and unsafe for being required by the son of petitioner Aggrieved thereof, respondent No.1 filed first appeal before the llowed vide order dated 30.03.2015 while was fit for human habitation, however need qua son of petitioner was not established on record. That is how, the ner-landlady. It may be pointed out here that the respondents having tendered rent before the learned Rent Controller; the said issue was never agitated first appeal filed by the respondents-tenants Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the son of petitioner having graduated besides done DJ course from the ‘Spin Guru’ 2 thereby landlady while submitting that occupation of petitioner herself and it was Further with respect that he graduated of Greater Kailash, shop was not qua the rent, the same were Based on the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller vide its decision dated 11.05.2012 ordered eviction of the question being unfit and unsafe for on of petitioner- Aggrieved thereof, respondent No.1 filed first appeal before the llowed vide order dated 30.03.2015 while was fit for human habitation, however the That is how, the It may be pointed out here that the respondents having tendered ; the said issue was never agitated s Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the son ’ of MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 Greater Kailash could not create shadow over the of the demised shop could not be presumed appeal/revision petition, son of the pe starting his career and was for himself. Learned counsel petitioner-landlady was to be taken into consideration from the prospects of petitioner-landlady and her family only. 7.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Authority also went wrong while recording that there petitioner-landlady in her pleadings that the tenanted shop/demised building in question was required to be demolished and re bona fide need as set up plea/ground with respect to submits that once it was specifically pleaded in the eviction petition that the building in which the tenanted shop was as a normal consequence vacated by the respondents findings recorded by the was not unfit and unsafe evidence available 7.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of evidence led by the petitioner in the shape of Building Expert his report as Ex.A (O&M) Greater Kailash, New Delhi was employed in and around Chandigarh, the same create shadow over the cause set up in the eviction petition qua of the demised shop. It was further submitted that presumed that during pendency of the eviction petition or even appeal/revision petition, son of the petitioner was required to starting his career and was, thus not supposed to Learned counsel also submits that the landlady was to be taken into consideration from the prospects of landlady and her family only. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the went wrong while recording that there landlady in her pleadings that the tenanted shop/demised building in question was required to be demolished and re-constructed need as set up in the pleadings was in contradiction to her an plea/ground with respect to the demised shop submits that once it was specifically pleaded in the eviction petition that the building in which the tenanted shop was situated ormal consequence it was needed to be re vacated by the respondents-tenants. It has also been submitted that even the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority to the effect that building in question was not unfit and unsafe for human habitation was also wrong in the wake of available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of evidence led by the petitioner in the shape of Building Expert his report as Ex.A-1, the Appellate Authority , New Delhi was employed in and around Chandigarh, the same cause set up in the eviction petition qua his need It was further submitted that by any stretch of imagination, it that during pendency of the eviction petition or even titioner was required to keep waiting not supposed to start any job/occupation/vocation submits that the bona fide need of son of landlady was to be taken into consideration from the prospects of Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Appellate went wrong while recording that there was no plea set up by the landlady in her pleadings that the tenanted shop/demised building in constructed and as such the plea of pleadings was in contradiction to her another the demised shop. In this regard, learned counsel submits that once it was specifically pleaded in the eviction petition that the situated had outlived its life and, therefore was needed to be re-constructed once it was got It has also been submitted that even the to the effect that building in question for human habitation was also wrong in the wake of Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of evidence led by the petitioner in the shape of Building Expert-AW1, who proved Appellate Authority misread and mis-appreciated the 3 , New Delhi was employed in and around Chandigarh, the same need any stretch of imagination, it that during pendency of the eviction petition or even the for any job/occupation/vocation son of landlady was to be taken into consideration from the prospects of Appellate no plea set up by the landlady in her pleadings that the tenanted shop/demised building in as such the plea of other In this regard, learned counsel submits that once it was specifically pleaded in the eviction petition that the and, therefore constructed once it was got It has also been submitted that even the to the effect that building in question for human habitation was also wrong in the wake of Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of AW1, who proved appreciated the MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 evidence available on record as such aside by upholding the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for re the reasoning recorded by the Appellate Authority appreciation of evidence and that since 2006- her son at Hoshiarpur Chandigarh and, thus it was apparent that the need/necessity expressed by the petitioner-landlady was mere notice could be taken to the fact that it was always better to set around the capital city of Chandigarh rather than putting it in Hoshiarpur. No other argument was raised on behalf of respondent No.1. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. 10. In the present case, though the eviction petition was sought at the instance of petitioner rent; the building in q and the demised learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur ordered eviction against the respondents on the ground of building in question h habitation and also for the reason that the petitioner of demised shop Authority, Hoshiapur, though reversed the Controller while holding that the building in question was though fit for human (O&M) evidence available on record as such the judgment passed by aside by upholding the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller On the other hand, learned counsel for re the reasoning recorded by the Appellate Authority appreciation of evidence and the pleadings available on record. He further submits -2008, no effort was ever made by the petitioner her son at Hoshiarpur and throughout these years, he was doing jobs in and around Chandigarh and, thus it was apparent that the need/necessity expressed by the landlady was mere her wish. It has also been submitted that judicial uld be taken to the fact that it was always better to set capital city of Chandigarh rather than putting it in Hoshiarpur. No other argument was raised on behalf of respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the In the present case, though the eviction petition was sought at the instance of petitioner-landlady on the ground of respondents being in arrears of rent; the building in question having become unfit and unsafe and the demised shop been required for personal Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur ordered eviction against the respondents on the ground of building in question having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and also for the reason that the petitioner shop for setting up of business/vocation of her son. Authority, Hoshiapur, though reversed the reasonings Controller while holding that the building in question was though fit for human the judgment passed by it may kindly be set aside by upholding the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the reasoning recorded by the Appellate Authority was based on proper pleadings available on record. He further submits , no effort was ever made by the petitioner-landlady to settle and throughout these years, he was doing jobs in and around Chandigarh and, thus it was apparent that the need/necessity expressed by the . It has also been submitted that judicial uld be taken to the fact that it was always better to set up a DJ business capital city of Chandigarh rather than putting it in Hoshiarpur. No other argument was raised on behalf of respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the In the present case, though the eviction petition was sought at the landlady on the ground of respondents being in arrears of uestion having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation personal bona fide need of her son. The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur ordered eviction against the respondents on aving become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and also for the reason that the petitioner-landlady established the need of business/vocation of her son. The Appellate reasonings recorded by the learned Rent Controller while holding that the building in question was though fit for human 4 may kindly be set spondent No.1 submits that was based on proper pleadings available on record. He further submits settle and throughout these years, he was doing jobs in and around Chandigarh and, thus it was apparent that the need/necessity expressed by the . It has also been submitted that judicial a DJ business capital city of Chandigarh rather than putting it in Hoshiarpur. No other I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the In the present case, though the eviction petition was sought at the landlady on the ground of respondents being in arrears of human habitation need of her son. The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur ordered eviction against the respondents on aving become unfit and unsafe for human landlady established the need Appellate Rent Controller while holding that the building in question was though fit for human MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 habitation, however, the petitioner fide need of her son, namely, Sunny Kapo 11. Having gone record, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority to the effect that the building in question was fit for human habitation need no interference as the same are based on appreciation of reports subm who appeared as a witness on behalf of respondents relying upon the photogra Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point a substantial evidence to controvert the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority on the aforesaid issue and 12. In such circumstances, as Appellate Authority on the point of demised petitioner-landlady, the same need to be reversed for the reason that of petitioner graduated in the year 2006 and thereafter the institute known as and thereafter, got always intended have been residing since long. The fact that the son of petitioner was carrying out some job during the cu taken/considered against him while dealing with the plea of his qua the demised shop having attained graduation to keep himself idle for long and was, thus as to earn his livelihood and (O&M) habitation, however, the petitioner-landlady failed to prove her case qua the d of her son, namely, Sunny Kapoor. Having gone through the pleadings record, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority to the effect that the building in question was fit for human habitation need no interference as the same are based on appreciation of reports submitted by an Architect who appeared as a witness on behalf of respondents relying upon the photographs of the building in question/ Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point a substantial evidence to controvert the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority on the aforesaid issue and, thus the same are, therefore affirmed. In such circumstances, as regards the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority on the point of demised shop landlady, the same need to be reversed for the reason that of petitioner graduated in the year 2006 and thereafter the institute known as ‘Spin Guru’ of Greater Kailash, New Del got employed in and around Chandigarh as the petitioner intended to adjust her son in the Hoshiarpur have been residing since long. The fact that the son of petitioner was carrying out some job during the currency of the eviction petition/appeal/ considered against him while dealing with the plea of his demised shop in question as during all these years, the son of petitioner having attained graduation and possessed with to keep himself idle for long and was, thus always free to join any vocation / job s as to earn his livelihood and, thus it cannot be considered landlady failed to prove her case qua the bona pleadings and the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority to the effect that the building in question was fit for human habitation need no interference as the same itted by an Architect-Sh. Rahul Dev Syal, who appeared as a witness on behalf of respondents-tenant as RW-2 besides phs of the building in question/demised premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point a substantial evidence to controvert the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority therefore affirmed. regards the findings recorded by the shop being required by the son of landlady, the same need to be reversed for the reason that merely the son of petitioner graduated in the year 2006 and thereafter passed out a DJ course fr of Greater Kailash, New Delhi in the year 2007 employed in and around Chandigarh as the petitioner-landlady son in the Hoshiarpur City only where his parents have been residing since long. The fact that the son of petitioner was carrying out rrency of the eviction petition/appeal/revision cannot be considered against him while dealing with the plea of his bona fide necessity in question as during all these years, the son of petitioner a diploma in DJ was not supposed always free to join any vocation / job s considered against him. Moreover, 5 bona and the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority to the effect that the building in question was fit for human habitation need no interference as the same Sh. Rahul Dev Syal, 2 besides Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point any substantial evidence to controvert the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority regards the findings recorded by the being required by the son of the son passed out a DJ course from 2007 landlady ere his parents have been residing since long. The fact that the son of petitioner was carrying out revision cannot be necessity in question as during all these years, the son of petitioner not supposed always free to join any vocation / job so against him. Moreover, MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3119 of 2015 the prospects of demised petitioner-landlady has and her family only and not from the eye of respondent 13. In such circumstances, finding that the petitioner-landlady was genuine and established on record from the conjoint reading of pleadings as well as the deposition of the landlady who appeared as AW-2 as well as from AW-3, the reasoning are hereby reversed and recorded in favour of the petitioner 14. As an effect of the aforesaid finding, the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is passed against the respondents 15. Disposed off accordingly. stand disposed of. May 20, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (O&M) the prospects of demised shop required for the personal need of the landlady has to be seen and considered from only and not from the eye of respondent In such circumstances, finding that the landlady was genuine and established on record from the conjoint reading of pleadings as well as the deposition of the landlady who appeared as as well as from the statement of her son- reasoning recorded by the Appellate Authority qua the are hereby reversed and recorded in favour of the petitioner As an effect of the aforesaid finding, the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is reversed/modified accordingly and an order of eviction is passed against the respondents–tenants qua the demised shop. Disposed off accordingly. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No required for the personal need of the son of to be seen and considered from the prospects of landlady only and not from the eye of respondents-tenants. In such circumstances, finding that the bona fide need of the son of landlady was genuine and established on record from the conjoint reading of pleadings as well as the deposition of the landlady who appeared as -Sunny Kapoor having appeared as recorded by the Appellate Authority qua the bona fide need are hereby reversed and recorded in favour of the petitioner-landlady. As an effect of the aforesaid finding, the judgment passed by the reversed/modified accordingly and an order of eviction is tenants qua the demised shop. Pending application(s), if any shall also (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 6 son of the prospects of landlady need of the son of landlady was genuine and established on record from the conjoint reading of pleadings as well as the deposition of the landlady who appeared as Sunny Kapoor having appeared as need As an effect of the aforesaid finding, the judgment passed by the reversed/modified accordingly and an order of eviction is Pending application(s), if any shall also MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.26 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment