CR-8171- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Harjit Kaur and Barjinder Pal Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: HARKESH MANUJA, laid to an order dated Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondents/co Urban R application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for seeking leave to contest, came to be declined thereby resulting into passing of an eviction them. 2. consisting of -2014 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Harjit Kaur and anr. VERSUS Barjinder Pal Singh Gill and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid to an order dated 29.09.2014 passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondents/co-owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for seeking leave to contest, came to be declined thereby resulting into passing of an eviction The present dispute relates to the demised premises consisting of 800 sq. feet area (front portion IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R-8171-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate By way of present revision petition challenge has been passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punjab ent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for seeking leave to contest, came to be declined thereby resulting into passing of an eviction order against The present dispute relates to the demised premises 800 sq. feet area (front portion-ground floor) of SCO By way of present revision petition challenge has been passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punjab whereby an application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for seeking leave to contest, came to order against The present dispute relates to the demised premises of SCO SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- No.83-84, Sector 17 respondents happen to be co SCO No. 83 the ‘building’). forming part of SCO No. 83 referred to as ‘demised pre his death it was occupied by petitioners being respectively created by the respondent about different portions of the building in question: 3. permanently settled in England and running successful business there, the respondents inv ejectment of petitioners from the demises premises on the ground that the same was now required for their personal use and -2014 (O&M) [2] 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, the respondents happen to be co-owners of the SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh (hereinafter refered to as the ‘building’). Respondents No.1 to 5 let out the demised premises forming part of SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17 referred to as ‘demised premises’) to his death it was occupied by petitioners being respectively. Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created by the respondent about different portions of the building in question:- (i) Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ Rs.26215/- per month; (ii) Portion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; (iii) Portion of 1st Canam Consultants Limited (iv) Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were separately rented out some portion of 3rd floor. Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business there, the respondents invoked Section 13 ejectment of petitioners from the demises premises on the ground that the same was now required for their personal use and D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, the owners of the building in question i.e. D, Chandigarh (hereinafter refered to as Respondents No.1 to 5 let out the demised premises 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, (hereinafter mises’) to Harbhajan Singh whereas after his death it was occupied by petitioners being the widow and son, . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created by the respondent about different portions of the building in Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ per month; ortion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; st and 2nd floor rented out to Consultants Limited; Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were separately rented out some portion of 3rd Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business oked Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, seeking ejectment of petitioners from the demises premises on the ground that the same was now required for their personal use and D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, the building in question i.e. D, Chandigarh (hereinafter refered to as Respondents No.1 to 5 let out the demised premises D, Chandigarh, (hereinafter Harbhajan Singh whereas after widow and son, . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created by the respondent about different portions of the building in Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ ortion on the ground floor and basement floor rented out to Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were separately rented out some portion of 3rd Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business B of the 1949 Act, seeking ejectment of petitioners from the demises premises on the ground that the same was now required for their personal use and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the northern region of the cou therein. It was also pleaded that the by the respondents while invoking the petitioners regarding the demised premises were dismissed by the authorities below and different revision petitions arising therefrom were pending before this Court. It was further pleaded that the possession of respondent No. franchise agreement dated 26.03.2009 with petitioner No.1 was unauthorized. 4. Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, inter-alia -2014 (O&M) [3] occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the northern region of the country and also for setting up of an office therein. It was also pleaded that the by the respondents while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act against the petitioners regarding the demised premises were dismissed by orities below and different revision petitions arising therefrom were pending before this Court. It was further pleaded that the possession of respondent No.6 over the demised premises under franchise agreement dated 26.03.2009 with petitioner No.1 was uthorized. Upon notice, the petitioners appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, alia on the following grounds:- (a) At least four eviction petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act by the respondents against petitioners qua the demised premises were dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh followed by dismissal of appeals arising therefrom pending, therefore, the case for leave to contest was made out in favour of petitioners tenants. (b) Neither the other co question were impleaded in the eviction petition; nor their consent was ever obtained for the purpose occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the ntry and also for setting up of an office therein. It was also pleaded that the previous eviction petitions filed Section 13 of the 1949 Act against the petitioners regarding the demised premises were dismissed by orities below and different revision petitions arising therefrom were pending before this Court. It was further pleaded that the over the demised premises under franchise agreement dated 26.03.2009 with petitioner No.1 was Upon notice, the petitioners appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, least four eviction petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act by the respondents against petitioners qua the demised premises were dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh followed by dismissal of appeals arising therefrom and civil revisions we therefore, the case for leave to contest was made out in favour of petitioners Neither the other co-owners of the building in question were impleaded in the eviction petition; nor their consent was ever obtained for the purpose of filing the same; occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the ntry and also for setting up of an office previous eviction petitions filed Section 13 of the 1949 Act against the petitioners regarding the demised premises were dismissed by orities below and different revision petitions arising therefrom were pending before this Court. It was further pleaded that the over the demised premises under franchise agreement dated 26.03.2009 with petitioner No.1 was Upon notice, the petitioners appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, least four eviction petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act by the respondents against petitioners qua the demised premises were dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh followed by dismissal of appeals and civil revisions were therefore, the case for leave to contest was made out in favour of petitioners- owners of the building in question were impleaded in the eviction petition; nor their consent was ever obtained SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- 5. contest was filed on behalf of the rejection of the same. 6. 29.09.2014 leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date in terms of Section 13 -2014 (O&M) [4] (c) Petitioners having purchased 1/ the building in question; tenancy came to an end and as such no eviction petition could have been filed against them final decree of partition qua the said building was passed in favour of all concerned including petitioner No.1 (d) Respondents, after withdrawal of petition under Section 13 fresh tenancy regarding ground floor of the building Singh, besides portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala which reflected that their need qua the premises in question was not genuine eviction petition was ever f Besides it, the respondents were well settled in England and running their business successfully and thus never intended to settle in India. A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to contest was filed on behalf of the respondents, with the prayer for rejection of the same. Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated 29.09.2014 rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date terms of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act while directing them to Petitioners having purchased 1/9th share in the building in question; tenancy came to an end and as such no eviction petition could have been filed against them especially when final decree of partition qua the said building was passed in favour of all concerned including petitioner No.1; Respondents, after withdrawal of petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act created fresh tenancy regarding some portion ground floor of the building in favour of Harjit Singh, besides having renting out some portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala which reflected that their need qua the premises in question was not genuine as no eviction petition was ever filed against them Besides it, the respondents were well settled in England and running their business successfully and thus never intended to settle A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to respondents, with the prayer for Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date B of the 1949 Act while directing them to share in the building in question; tenancy came to an end and as such no eviction petition could especially when final decree of partition qua the said building was passed in favour of all concerned Respondents, after withdrawal of petition B of the 1949 Act created some portion of in favour of Harjit renting out some portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala which reflected that their need qua the as no iled against them. Besides it, the respondents were well settled in England and running their business successfully and thus never intended to settle A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to respondents, with the prayer for Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date B of the 1949 Act while directing them to SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision petition. 7. learned Rent Controller, representing (i) (ii) -2014 (O&M) [5] vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision petition. Impugning the order dated learned Rent Controller, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner(s) made the following arguments Earlier eviction petitions respondents against the petitioners 13 of the 1949 Act were declined by the Rent Controller Chandigarh which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and revision petitions arising therefrom adjudication before this Court, which thus, made a valid ground for grant of leave to of petitioners. In this regard, reliance decision rendered by this Principal, New Public School and another Versus Kirpal Singh Sethi”, reported as 2018 (1) RCR 616 and in case “Hans Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur reported as 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 66 counsel also submitted that another eviction petition against tenant Harjit Singh was 13-B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh which clearly reflects that the need of respondents was not genuine (ii) leave to contest was granted to similarly Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated 19.09.2016 and the proceedings in t petition were at the circumstances, the case of petitioners vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present Impugning the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the learned Senior Counsel Sh.Chetan Mittal made the following arguments:- petitions filed at the instance of the petitioners while invoking Section declined by the Rent Controller affirmed by the Appellate Authority arising therefrom were pending adjudication before this Court, which thus, prima facie ground for grant of leave to contest in favour regard, reliance was placed upon the decision rendered by this Court in case “R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public School and another Versus ”, reported as 2018 (1) RCR (Rent) Hans Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur reported as 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 667. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that another eviction petition against tenant Harjit Singh was earlier filed under Section B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent which clearly reflects that the need of respondents was not genuine. contest was granted to similarly situated tenant Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated 09.2016 and the proceedings in the said eviction petition were at the final stage; thus, in such stances, the case of petitioners being identically vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present passed by the n Mittal filed at the instance of while invoking Section declined by the Rent Controller, affirmed by the Appellate Authority pending prima facie, in favour placed upon the R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public School and another Versus (Rent) Hans Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur”, 7. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that another eviction petition filed under Section B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent which clearly reflects that the need situated tenant – Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated he said eviction final stage; thus, in such being identically SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- (iii) (iv) (v) -2014 (O&M) [6] placed, leave to contest Reliance in this regard was placed upon the passed by this Court in case (i) “ Versus Satwant Singh”, report (Civil) 208; (ii) Civil Revision No. 6003 of “Jaswinder Singh Versus Bakhshish Singh on 20.04.2017 and (iii) Civil Revision No. 6047 of titled “Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh Kahlon” decided on dated 05.04.201 ) Respondents rented out some other portions of ground floor and top floor to Harjit Singh Saroj Bala, as such their particularly when they had not returned back to India so far and were running their successful business in England. v) Around 1/9th share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in question was purchased by the petitioner owners vide sale deed of petitioners having become co could not be evicted from the also submitted that neither all the other co building in question were impleaded as parties; nor their consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. (v) Preliminary decree dated 19.05.2016 followed by the final decree dated 10.10.2018 Court with regard to the building partition filed at the instance of one of the co Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at the instance of respondents was liable to be dismissed contest was to be granted to them regard was placed upon the decisions rt in case (i) “Mukand Lal Bawa ”, reported as 2009 (3) RCR Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2014, titled Jaswinder Singh Versus Bakhshish Singh” decided Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2013, Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh dated 05.04.2017. rented out some other portions of ground floor and top floor to Harjit Singh, Paramjit Singh and their bona fide need not established particularly when they had not returned back to India so far and were running their successful business in share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in purchased by the petitioners from other co of the year 2000 and therefore, having become co-sharers/co-owner therein evicted from the demised premises. It was also submitted that neither all the other co-owners of the n were impleaded as parties; nor their consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. reliminary decree dated 19.05.2016 followed by the final decree dated 10.10.2018 was passed by the Civil building in question in a suit for partition filed at the instance of one of the co-owner Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at the instance of respondents was liable to be dismissed. to them. ons Mukand Lal Bawa ed as 2009 (3) RCR 2014, titled decided 2013, Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh rented out some other portions of ground and need not established particularly when they had not returned back to India so far and were running their successful business in share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in from other co- therefore, therein demised premises. It was owners of the n were impleaded as parties; nor their consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition reliminary decree dated 19.05.2016 followed by the was passed by the Civil in a suit for owner Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- (vi) 8. submits that the premises in question was required for the personal bona fide business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to the filing and withdrawal of tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28 ‘ of the ground floor (front portion), it was submitted that as per the require of respondents, eviction was sought for against the petitioners qua first floor and the second floor and also separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Iqbal Singh from ground floor and basement (back porti floor (front portion). Further, it was specifically denied that any -2014 (O&M) [7] (vi) Another eviction petition under Section 13 Act was filed at the instance of two of the respondents being co-sharers of another premises / SCO Nos. 318, Sector-35B, Chandigarh, thus eviction petition under the same provision i.e. Section 13 the bona fide necessity qua the demised premises at their instance was not maintainable provisions of Section 13- apply only once for seeking eviction of one such building during his life time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present eviction petition qua the demised premises of the building in question was not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the premises in question was required for the personal fide need of the respondents as they were running successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade ts trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to filing and withdrawal of eviction petition against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28 ‘ of the ground floor (front portion), it was submitted that as per the require of respondents, eviction was sought for against the petitioners qua first floor and the second floor and also separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Iqbal Singh from ground floor and basement (back portion) as well as Harjit Kaur from ground floor (front portion). Further, it was specifically denied that any under Section 13-B of the 1949 s filed at the instance of two of the respondents sharers of another premises / SCO Nos. 317, ndigarh, thus eviction petition under the same provision i.e. Section 13-B of the 1949 Act for ty qua the demised premises at their not maintainable as under the statutory -B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for seeking eviction of one such building ife time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present eviction petition qua the demised premises of the building in question was not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the premises in question was required for the personal need of the respondents as they were running successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade ts trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to eviction petition against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28 ‘ of the ground floor (front portion), it was submitted that as per the requirements and suitability of respondents, eviction was sought for against the petitioners qua first floor and the second floor and also separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Iqbal Singh from ground on) as well as Harjit Kaur from ground floor (front portion). Further, it was specifically denied that any B of the 1949 s filed at the instance of two of the respondents 317, ndigarh, thus eviction petition under of the 1949 Act for ty qua the demised premises at their as under the statutory B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for seeking eviction of one such building ife time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present eviction petition qua the demised premises of the On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the premises in question was required for the personal need of the respondents as they were running successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade ts trade in the northern region of the country. With regard to eviction petition against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an area measuring 17’ x 28 ‘ of the ground floor (front ments and suitability of respondents, eviction was sought for against the petitioners qua first floor and the second floor and also separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Iqbal Singh from ground on) as well as Harjit Kaur from ground floor (front portion). Further, it was specifically denied that any SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- portion of building in question was ever sold by the respondents being its co 8.1 the ground that no objection from other co the respondents, it was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of petitioners by the respondents being its co owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act without even obtaining the consent of other co mere fact that the petitioners had purchased some share of the building in question from another co their status of being tenants under respondents. 8.2. instance of two of the respondents against their tenants while invoking Section 13 or Section 13 that the same were based on different cause of action 9. through the paper submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 10. the instance of grounds the Rent Controller besides even dismissal of first appeal going to -2014 (O&M) [8] portion of building in question was ever sold by the respondents being its co-owners. With regard to maintainability of the eviction petition o the ground that no objection from other co the respondents, it was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of petitioners by the respondents being its co owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act without even obtaining the consent of other co mere fact that the petitioners had purchased some share of the building in question from another co-owner w their status of being tenants under respondents. With respect to the other eviction petitions filed at the instance of two of the respondents against their tenants while invoking Section 13 or Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, it w that the same were based on different cause of action I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book(s), but unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Mere fact that the previous eviction petition the instance of respondents against grounds while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act the Rent Controller besides even dismissal of first appeal going to create any cause in favour of petitioners in the present portion of building in question was ever sold by the respondents With regard to maintainability of the eviction petition o the ground that no objection from other co-owners was obtained by the respondents, it was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of petitioners by the respondents being its co owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act without even obtaining the consent of other co-owners and mere fact that the petitioners had purchased some share of the owner was not going to change their status of being tenants under respondents. With respect to the other eviction petitions filed at the instance of two of the respondents against their tenants while B of the 1949 Act, it was submitted that the same were based on different cause of action. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book(s), but unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. the previous eviction petitions preferred at respondents against the petitioners on various while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act were dismissed by the Rent Controller besides even dismissal of first appeals were not create any cause in favour of petitioners in the present portion of building in question was ever sold by the respondents With regard to maintainability of the eviction petition on owners was obtained by the respondents, it was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of petitioners by the respondents being its co- the same for their personal use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the owners and mere fact that the petitioners had purchased some share of the as not going to change With respect to the other eviction petitions filed at the instance of two of the respondents against their tenants while as submitted I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book(s), but unable to find substance in the preferred at the petitioners on various dismissed by not create any cause in favour of petitioners in the present SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- proceedings which were arising out of an eviction petition filed Section 13 upon the respondents to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kaur (Dead) through LRs para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder: 11. about grant of leave to contest in favour of one of the other tenants, namely, -2014 (O&M) [9] proceedings which were arising out of an eviction petition filed Section 13-B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred the respondents being the co-owner to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) through LRs, reported as 2010 (2) Rent L para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder: “48. The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition filed by the respondent has no material bearing at all on the merits of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the Act which confers a special right on the Non Indian-owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed by such NRI-landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises was required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on meri filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under Section 138 of the Act. The non irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the respondent-landlady.” With respect to the plea on behalf of petitioners about grant of leave to contest in favour of one of the other tenants, Iqbal Singh, it may be pointed out here that the said order proceedings which were arising out of an eviction petition filed under B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred owners of the building in question to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter , reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder:- The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady in default, in my view, has no material bearing at all on the merits of the led by her under Section 13B of the Act which confers a special right on the Non-Resident owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the ion petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises was required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under Section 138 of the Act. The non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the landlady.” ect to the plea on behalf of petitioners – tenants about grant of leave to contest in favour of one of the other tenants, be pointed out here that the said order under B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred question to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter R 74 and The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition landlady in default, in my view, has no material bearing at all on the merits of the led by her under Section 13B of the Resident owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the ion petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises was required by the respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. ts, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under disclosure of an irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the tenants about grant of leave to contest in favour of one of the other tenants, be pointed out here that the said order SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller assailed at the instance of respondent Revision No. of respondents leave to contest to Iqbal Singh followed by an order of passed against him in terms of Accordingly, the petitioners benefit out of the same. relevant to the observations made by this Court Sky Worldwide Travels and another Vs. Harvinder Singh (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [10] dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller ailed at the instance of respondent Revision No. 2956 of 2018 and the same has been allowed in favour of respondents vide order of even date leave to contest to Iqbal Singh followed by an order of passed against him in terms of Section 13 Accordingly, the petitioners –tenants cannot benefit out of the same. Moreover, reference at this stage would be relevant to the observations made by this Court Sky Worldwide Travels and another Vs. Harvinder Singh (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder:- “8. The contention that in respect of yet another tenement within the same complex of building, a tenant has obtained an order of stay before this court could hardly be a ground for me to deny consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A landlord which se tenements may come by several obstructions and if he must wait for a period that all orders of eviction must be passed simultaneously, we must be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge of how our courts function. Each co own time and there is no particular strategy that we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and decided within any stipulated period. of the Act itself sets a different proc imposes a duty on a court to consider whether there is any case made by the respondent before dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh was ailed at the instance of respondents–landlords by way of Civil 2956 of 2018 and the same has been allowed in favour vide order of even date, thereby declining the grant of leave to contest to Iqbal Singh followed by an order of eviction ection 13–B of the 1949 A tenants cannot be permitted to draw any Moreover, reference at this stage would be relevant to the observations made by this Court in the case of “Blue Sky Worldwide Travels and another Vs. Harvinder Singh”, 2015 (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted The contention that in respect of yet another tenement within the same complex of building, a tenant has obtained an order of stay before this court could hardly be a ground for me to deny consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A landlord which seeks for eviction of several tenements may come by several obstructions and if he must wait for a period that all orders of eviction must be passed simultaneously, we must be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge of how our courts function. Each court takes its own time and there is no particular strategy that we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and decided within any stipulated period. Section 13 of the Act itself sets a different procedure and imposes a duty on a court to consider whether there is any case made by the respondent before Chandigarh was Civil 2956 of 2018 and the same has been allowed in favour , thereby declining the grant of eviction Act. draw any Moreover, reference at this stage would be Blue , 2015 (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted The contention that in respect of yet another tenement within the same complex of building, a tenant has obtained an order of stay before this court could hardly be a ground for me to deny consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A eks for eviction of several tenements may come by several obstructions and if he must wait for a period that all orders of eviction must be passed simultaneously, we must be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge urt takes its own time and there is no particular strategy that we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and Section 13-B edure and imposes a duty on a court to consider whether there is any case made by the respondent before SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- 12. on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that eviction petition invoking Section 13 contesting joint property forming part of SCO No. 317 as the same was never was withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section 13 their other co Sector 35 Chandigarh present eviction petition by the respondents qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur -2014 (O&M) [11] he is allowed to defend. This is to take note of an existing reality that no litigation in India comes to close immediately and a defence under whatever grounds and however fragile will assure to litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. If Section 13-B must be given a meaning, that meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter the landlord from claiming eviction. If the landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such unusual conting judgment.” Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that eviction petition invoking Section 13-B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the contesting respondents being co-owners along with others qua their joint property forming part of SCO No. 317 as the same was never got adjudicated upon on merits and rather, it withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was sed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other co-shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317 Sector 35 Chandigarh was not to be treated as bar for fil present eviction petition by the respondents qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur he is allowed to defend. This is to take note of an existing reality that no litigation in India comes to close immediately and a defence under whatever grounds and however fragile will assure to litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. B must be given a meaning, that meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter ord from claiming eviction. If the landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such unusual contingency to prevail over my own Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that eviction petition invoking B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the owners along with others qua their joint property forming part of SCO No. 317–18, sector 35, Chandigarh adjudicated upon on merits and rather, it withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was sed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317–318, be treated as bar for filing of present eviction petition by the respondents qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur he is allowed to defend. This is to take note of an existing reality that no litigation in India comes to close immediately and a defence under whatever grounds and however fragile will assure to litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. B must be given a meaning, that meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter ord from claiming eviction. If the landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such ency to prevail over my own Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that eviction petition invoking B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the owners along with others qua their 18, sector 35, Chandigarh adjudicated upon on merits and rather, it withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was sed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with 318, ing of present eviction petition by the respondents qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, namely, Jasmeet Kaur SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co achieve possession of the said property in terms of section 13 B of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never substantially attained by them building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their instance, along with other respondents, being co demise premises forming part of building in question was maintainable as per law. 13. 13. under Section 13 namely, Harjit Singh eviction petitions against Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala occupation in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the respondents question as per their reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term building also includes a part of it and therefore, the were well within their right to see while invoking Section 13 and necessity with respect to the start of new business. -2014 (O&M) [12] and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co-owners with others did not even achieve the actual benefit of been possession of the said property in terms of section 13 B of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never substantially attained by them; available to them once in their li building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their instance, along with other respondents, being co demise premises forming part of building in question was maintainable as per law. Also, the respondents having preferred eviction petition Section 13-B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, namely, Harjit Singh; the same been withdrawn and eviction petitions against Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala occupation of some portion of third floor, respectively, in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the respondents were free to seek eviction from a part of building in question as per their suitability/ requirement and need. reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term building also includes a part of it and therefore, the were well within their right to seek eviction of while invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act necessity with respect to the start of new business. owners with others did not even been handed over immediate possession of the said property in terms of section 13 B of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never substantially available to them once in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their instance, along with other respondents, being co-owners qua the demise premises forming part of building in question was fully having preferred eviction petition B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, ; the same been withdrawn and the non-filing of eviction petitions against Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala who were some portion of third floor, respectively, of the building in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the were free to seek eviction from a part of building in requirement and need. The aforesaid reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term building also includes a part of it and therefore, the respondents k eviction of even a part thereof B of the 1949 Act; as per their requirement necessity with respect to the start of new business. owners with others did not even handed over immediate possession of the said property in terms of section 13 B of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never substantially fetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction petition filed at their owners qua the fully having preferred eviction petition B of the 1949 Act against their other tenant, filing of were in of the building in question was not to be treated as fatal to their cause as the were free to seek eviction from a part of building in foresaid reasoning is even derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the respondents thereof requirement SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- 14. has also have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised premises as pro The respondents expand the same in the demised premises; their also established especially when there it by the Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it was not at all essential for the themselves in advance as the same was going to cost them, in ter of their already well established business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under reliance can be placed upon the law of Rakesh Sharma versus Harmesh Singh 589. Relevant paragraph 10 of the hereunder -2014 (O&M) [13] From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it also been established on record that the have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised premises as provided under Section 13 respondents being successful businessmen and intending to the same in the demised premises; their also established especially when there it by the petitioners/ tenants for which burden was always upon them Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it was not at all essential for the respondents themselves in advance as the same was going to cost them, in ter of their already well established business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under Section 13 reliance can be placed upon the law Rakesh Sharma versus Harmesh Singh 589. Relevant paragraph 10 of the hereunder:- “10. The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhab From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it ord that the respondents / landlords have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the vided under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. being successful businessmen and intending to the same in the demised premises; their bonafide need was also established especially when there was no substantial rebuttal to for which burden was always upon them Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it respondents – landowners to shift themselves in advance as the same was going to cost them, in ter of their already well established business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the ection 13-B of 1949 Act. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the law laid down by this Court in case Rakesh Sharma versus Harmesh Singh, 2015 (1) RCR (Rent) 589. Relevant paragraph 10 of the this judgment is reproduced The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhab From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it / landlords have been residing in England for the last many decades; running their business and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke their special right of seeking immediate possession of the of the 1949 Act. being successful businessmen and intending to was no substantial rebuttal to for which burden was always upon them. Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business in India, it landowners to shift themselves in advance as the same was going to cost them, in terms of their already well established business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the n this regard, ourt in case (Rent) judgment is reproduced The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- 15. nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the being co immediate possession of the demised bona fide need. judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kumar’s case relevant is extracted hereunder: case of RCR (Rent) 264 here under: -2014 (O&M) [14] had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. It has also been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on the grounds raised in the application filed under Section 18-A of the Act, which would show that triable issues had been made Further, the language of Section 13 nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the being co-owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised bona fide need. Reference in this judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kumar’s case (supra). For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being relevant is extracted hereunder:- “26. The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a NRI co-owner/ joint owner can also file eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act.” Similar observations have been made by this case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh (Rent) 264 and relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted here under:- “9. ……In the instant case, the petitioner has had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. It has also been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country and he can do that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on the grounds raised in the application filed under A of the Act, which would show that triable issues had been made out.” the language of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the respondents owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised portion on account of their this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a owner/ joint owner can also file eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act.” Similar observations have been made by this Court in ramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh, reported as 2024 relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted ……In the instant case, the petitioner has had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. It has also been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the and he can do that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on the grounds raised in the application filed under A of the Act, which would show that triable B of the 1949 Act respondents owners were undoubtedly having right to seek eviction/ on account of their regard can be made to the Lakhwinder For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a owner/ joint owner can also file eviction ourt in (1) relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted ……In the instant case, the petitioner has SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171-2014 (O&M) [15] claimed to have purchased the land over which the demised shop has been buil brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produced any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, however, even in the absence of any coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the petitioner to be co still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is no such requirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the proceedings under Section 13 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance upon Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also be placed upon 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as ra petitioner-respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be claimed to have purchased the land over which the demised shop has been built along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. evision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produced any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, however, even in the absence of any material coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the petitioner to be co-owner of the demised shop, still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is equirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act, 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also be placed upon Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as raised by the revision respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be claimed to have purchased the land over which t along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. evision petitioner. Though the petitioner has not produced any document on record to show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, material coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the owner of the demised shop, still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is equirement of law and even if a landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of the property in dispute, he can take up the B of the Act, 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is ised by the revision respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- 16. the building in question vide sale deed the co-owner the demised premises respondents Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ others Vs. Bibi Husan Ban thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [16] rejected.” Just because that the petitioners the building in question vide sale deed owners, is not going to change the demised premises having been respondents. Reference be placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ others Vs. Bibi Husan Bano, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder: “21. In T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act where a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined by merger so long a the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain circumstances and the courts will presu against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position has been correctly stated in e petitioners purchased 1/9th share of the building in question vide sale deed of the year 2000 from one of not going to change their status of being tenant qua having been occupied by them under the placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. a Reddy and others (supra) this Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act here a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined by merger so long as the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain circumstances and the courts will presume against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position has been correctly stated in T. Lakshmipathi share of from one of status of being tenant qua under the placed on the decision rendered by Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. (supra) this Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act here a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined s the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain me against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position T. Lakshmipathi SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- 17. is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the possession was not the co-owners as per their entitle the shares of auction. entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, including the shares of deceased Sh.S.S.Gill and petitioners were held entitled for 1% sh 18. do not come to their rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in the cases of (supra), it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the petitioners so as to establish that the plea of the property in question as set up by the respondents in an petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on merits. Besides it, the decisions made in -2014 (O&M) [17] and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra). The subsequent decision in Umbrella Manufacturing Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law stated in T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy a Moreover, even as per the final decree of partition which is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the possession was not to be disturbed or parted with and the rights of owners as per their entitlement were to be settled upon putting the shares of auction. Moreover, respondents No.2 to 5 were held entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, including the shares of deceased Sh.S.S.Gill and petitioners were held entitled for 1% share only. Moreover, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners do not come to their rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in the cases of Kirpal Singh Sethi’s case (supra) and , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the petitioners so as to establish that the plea of the property in question as set up by the respondents in an petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on merits. Besides it, the decisions made in and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra). The subsequent decision in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Others v. Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others (supra) also proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra).” Moreover, even as per the final decree of partition which is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the be disturbed or parted with and the rights of ment were to be settled upon putting Moreover, respondents No.2 to 5 were held entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, including the shares of deceased Sh.S.S.Gill and petitioners were Moreover, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners do not come to their rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in case (supra) and Hans Raj’s case , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the petitioners so as to establish that the plea of bona fide necessity of the property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on merits. Besides it, the decisions made in Mukand Lal Bawa’s case and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others India Co. and Others v. Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri (supra) also proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Moreover, even as per the final decree of partition which is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the be disturbed or parted with and the rights of ment were to be settled upon putting Moreover, respondents No.2 to 5 were held entitled for 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, including the shares of deceased Sh.S.S.Gill and petitioners were Moreover, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners do not come to their rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in case , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the necessity of y of their petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on case SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- (supra), Singh’s the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted hereunder: 19. has failed to rebut the genui -2014 (O&M) [18] (supra), Smt. Kaushalya Rani’s case (supra) again would not help the petit the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted hereunder:- “28. Close to the same, very true, as p there are 4-5 other shops, relating to which, undisputedly ejectment petitions have been filed. It is submitted that as per the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the petitions under Section 13B possession of tenants, is not maintainable. However, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. Suffice to make reference to the decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal Dua vs. Shander Singh, in CR decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held that 'building' included entire building, part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded that where the premises in possession of various tenants are part of same building, therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' and the landowner is entitled to maintain various petitions filed against the various tenants of the same building.” Even otherwise, the petitioners has failed to rebut the genuineness of the need expressed by the case (supra) and Jaswinder case (supra) again would not help the petitioners in view of the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Ved Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal, 2024 (2) RCR (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted Close to the same, very true, as pointed out that 5 other shops, relating to which, undisputedly ejectment petitions have been filed. It is submitted that as per Section 13B of the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the Section 13B, qua all the shops in possession of tenants, is not maintainable. wever, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. Suffice to make reference to the decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal Dua vs. Shander Singh, in CR-4286-2014, decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held that 'building' included entire building, as also part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded that where the premises in possession of various tenants are part of same building, therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' and the landowner is entitled to maintain various ed against the various tenants of the petitioners-tenants in the given facts neness of the need expressed by the Jaswinder ioners in view of Ved , 2024 (2) RCR (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted ointed out that 5 other shops, relating to which, undisputedly ejectment petitions have been of the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the , qua all the shops in possession of tenants, is not maintainable. wever, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. Suffice to make reference to the decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal 2014, decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held as also part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded that where the premises in possession of various tenants are part of same building, therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' and the landowner is entitled to maintain various ed against the various tenants of the in the given facts neness of the need expressed by the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- respondents contest and thus circumstances, it judgment of (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted hereunder: -2014 (O&M) [19] respondents – landlords in their application, for seeking leave to est and thus the same needs to be rejected. circumstances, it may be relevant to place reliance upon the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted hereunder:- “20. The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure prescribed under Section 18 which requires the Controller to take up t day-to-day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is only the High Court w consideration of the case, whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13 gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the premises for five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for ejectment only once during his life time. Sub Section 13-Bimposes a restriction that he shall not transfer through sale or any other means or lease o the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any of the conditions of sub the tenant is given a right of r of the said building. Under sub application, for seeking leave to the same needs to be rejected. In such may be relevant to place reliance upon the Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) RCR (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act of 1949 which requires the Controller to take up the matter on day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is only the High Court which can exercise the power of consideration of the case, whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13- gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the r five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for ejectment only once during his life time. Sub-s. (3) of Bimposes a restriction that he shall not transfer through sale or any other means or lease out the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any of the conditions of sub-section (3) of Section 13-B, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession of the said building. Under sub-section (2-B) of application, for seeking leave to In such may be relevant to place reliance upon the , 2005 (2) RCR (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure A of the Act of 1949 he matter on day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is hich can exercise the power of consideration of the case, whether the decision of the -B gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the r five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for s. (3) of Bimposes a restriction that he shall not ut the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any B, estoration of possession B) of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171-2014 (O&M) [20] Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of such building to any tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption that the need Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would ap need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under Section 13-B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the rous conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would approach when his need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of-course, subject to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of urt shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong of the landlord is genuine. Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the rous conditions imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of the property by sale or any other manner. The restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord proach when his course, subject to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of urt shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- -2014 (O&M) [21] But this would not dis that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlords' favour requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine. 21. We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained according to plain langua and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Income- Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604. But this would not dis- entitle the tenant from proving that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlords' favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained according to plain language used in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese icer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604.” entitle the tenant from proving that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need ide and genuiness is permitted, the legislative intent of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained ge used in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese icer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon No.16 of the aforementioned judgment hereunder: 20. especially the judgments relied upon by the petitioners/ tenants been not applicable to the facts of the present case precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, prayer made by petitioners for leave to contest, petition is hereby dismissed. directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises in favour of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh 21. -2014 (O&M) [22] The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh, 2023 again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon of the aforementioned judgment under:- “16. From the scheme of things under Section 13 read with Section 18 the owner invoking Section 13 ingredients of the said Section and the onus is on Mukesh Kumar to disc would disentitle summary eviction under Section 13-B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove and especially the judgments relied upon by the petitioners/ tenants been not applicable to the facts of the present case precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, prayer made by petitioners for leave to contest, petition is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the petitioners/ tenants are directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises in favour of the respondents/ landlords Rent Controller, Chandigarh. With respect to grant of mesne The Hon’ble Apex Court in a latest decision of Mukesh 2023 (2) RCR (Rent) 657, has again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon tenant. Para of the aforementioned judgment being relevant, is reproduced From the scheme of things under Section 13-B read with Section 18-A, we are of the view that the owner invoking Section 13-B satisfies the ingredients of the said Section and the onus is on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove and especially the judgments relied upon by the petitioners/ tenants been not applicable to the facts of the present case; in terms of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, about declining the prayer made by petitioners for leave to contest, the present revision Resultantly, the petitioners/ tenants are directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises andlords as directed by the learned mesne profits, learned counsel for Mukesh 657, has again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts Para is reproduced B A, we are of the view that B satisfies the ingredients of the said Section and the onus is lose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under B, which, in our considered view, In view of the discussion made hereinabove and especially the judgments relied upon by the petitioners/ tenants been in terms of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides even passed t declining the the present revision Resultantly, the petitioners/ tenants are directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises as directed by the learned profits, learned counsel for SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- the respondents relied upon a lease deed dated 15.03.2013 pertaining to SCO No. 13, Sector 17 sq. ft. on ground floor and 380 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor which was leased out for a period of 09 years as per the following terms and conditions, with respect to the rate of rent: measuring 800 sq. ft. forming part of the ground floor 84, Sector 17 the premises forming part of aforementioned lease deed dated 15.03.2013, thereby value, as such relying upon the the mesne 29.09.2014 are hereby assessed at the rate of Rs.700/ Though in the lease deed dated 15.03.2013, some appreciation after every 03 years has been while assessing such a uniform rate of Rs.700/ mesne profits. -2014 (O&M) [23] the respondents relied upon a lease deed dated 15.03.2013 pertaining to SCO No. 13, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, measuring 2000 . ft. on ground floor and 380 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor which was leased out for a period of 09 years as per the following terms and conditions, with respect to the rate of rent: PERIOD a) 23.04.2013 to 22.04.2016 b) 23.04.2016 to 22.04.2019 c) 23.04.2019 to 22.04.2022 In the present case, the dispute relates to an area measuring 800 sq. ft. forming part of the ground floor 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh which is situated in close proximity the premises forming part of aforementioned lease deed dated 15.03.2013, thereby having similar potential as such relying upon the said mesne profits from the date of eviction of petitioner i.e. w.e.f. 29.09.2014 are hereby assessed at the rate of Rs.700/ Though in the lease deed dated 15.03.2013, some appreciation after every 03 years has been agreed, however, considering the fact that while assessing mesne profits the Court has to be reasonable, as such a uniform rate of Rs.700/- per sq. ft. profits. The lease deed commencing from 01.04.2010 relied upon the respondents relied upon a lease deed dated 15.03.2013 E, Chandigarh, measuring 2000 . ft. on ground floor and 380 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor which was leased out for a period of 09 years as per the following terms and conditions, with respect to the rate of rent:- RATE OF RENT(PER MONTH) 23.04.2013 to 22.04.2016 1660000/- Rs.697.48 per sq. ft. 23.04.2016 to 22.04.2019 1909000/- Rs.802.10 per sq. ft. 23.04.2019 to 22.04.2022 2195350/- Rs.922.42 per sq. ft. In the present case, the dispute relates to an area measuring 800 sq. ft. forming part of the ground floor of SCO No. 83 D, Chandigarh which is situated in close proximity the premises forming part of aforementioned lease deed dated having similar potential, locational and rental said lease deed dated 15.03.2013, profits from the date of eviction of petitioner i.e. w.e.f. 29.09.2014 are hereby assessed at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq. ft. Though in the lease deed dated 15.03.2013, some appreciation after , however, considering the fact that profits the Court has to be reasonable, as per sq. ft. is being assessed towards The lease deed commencing from 01.04.2010 relied upon the respondents relied upon a lease deed dated 15.03.2013 E, Chandigarh, measuring 2000 . ft. on ground floor and 380 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor which was leased out for a period of 09 years as per the following terms and RATE OF RENT(PER MONTH) @ .697.48 per sq. ft. @ Rs.802.10 per sq. ft. @ Rs.922.42 per sq. ft. In the present case, the dispute relates to an area of SCO No. 83- D, Chandigarh which is situated in close proximity to the premises forming part of aforementioned lease deed dated rental 15.03.2013, profits from the date of eviction of petitioner i.e. w.e.f. per sq. ft. Though in the lease deed dated 15.03.2013, some appreciation after , however, considering the fact that profits the Court has to be reasonable, as assessed towards The lease deed commencing from 01.04.2010 relied upon SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8171- by the petitioners though pertain Chandigarh, however, the same being not in close proximity in terms of period of eviction in the present case which is September 2014, thus is not being relied upon. filed on behalf of the respondents for grant of by fixing the date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 the demised premises. The arrears of a period of 0 order. 22. disposed of. 26.05.2025 sanjay -2014 (O&M) [24] petitioners though pertains to SCO Nos.61 Chandigarh, however, the same being not in close proximity in terms of period of eviction in the present case which is September 2014, thus is not being relied upon. Accordingly, the application bearing filed on behalf of the respondents for grant of by fixing the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of the demised premises. The arrears of a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall disposed of. .2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? to SCO Nos.61-62-63, Sector 17 Chandigarh, however, the same being not in close proximity in terms of period of eviction in the present case which is September 2014, ation bearing CM-5350-CII-2015 filed on behalf of the respondents for grant of mesne profits is allowed profits at the rate of Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of the demised premises. The arrears of mesne profits be cleared within the date of receipt of certified copy of the Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No 63, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, however, the same being not in close proximity in terms of period of eviction in the present case which is September 2014, 2015 profits is allowed profits at the rate of Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of profits be cleared within the date of receipt of certified copy of the also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document