CR-950-202 IN THE HIG 1. Parminder S Shri Raguna 2. Amarjit Kau Shri Raguna CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. petitions are are involved petitioner(s No. 5 (in CR 2025 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA CR-950-2025 (O&M) nder Singh Gill Versus agunath Mandir Society (Regd.) CR-951-2025 (O&M) it Kaur Gill through her LR and anoth Versus agunath Mandir Society (Regd.) and a Date o M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Divanshu Jain and Mr. Abh for the petitioner(s) (in both cas Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the Caveator-respondent(s) ( I GUPTA, J. By this common order the ns are being disposed as similar/comm volved between the same parties wi s) from 02 shops i.e. shop No. (in CR-951-2025). The shops in ques D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 .…Petitioner ....Respondent another .…Petitioners and another ....Respondents Date of Decision: 14.02.2025 NIDHI GUPTA r. Abhinav Goel, Advocates th cases). cate ent(s) (in both cases). two aforementioned revision /common questions of facts and law ies with regard to eviction of the No. 6 (in CR-950-2025) and shop question are in the same vicinity. sion the hop nity. RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 However, been passed 2. petitioner/ten Restriction A dated 27.01 Authority, L seeking perm happened du Shri Raghun detailed site position exis 3. two separate under Sectio demised pre CR-951-202 petitioner(s) and persona 12.02.2019 Controller, L the date of r of the demis 5 (in CR-95 2025 (O&M) -2- ver, separate impugned orders of ev assed by the Appellate Authority, Lud Both the aforesaid revision pet ner/tenant under Section 15(5) of t ction Act, 1949 (for short-‘the Act’), l 27.01.2025 (in both cases) passed rity, Ludhiana, whereby the applicatio g permission for bringing on record ned during the pendency of appeal b aghunath Mandir Society and to sub d site plan and photographs regar n existing at the spot, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that parate petitions dated 06.05.2015 (An Section 13 of the Act, for eviction ed premises i.e. Shop No. 6 (in CR- 2025). The respondent-Society ner(s) on the grounds of non-paymen ersonal necessity. Vide two separa 2019 (Annexure P-5, in both cases) ller, Ludhiana, the petitioner(s) were te of receipt of copy of the order(s) demised premises i.e. Shop No. 6 (in 951-2025) to the respondent-Socie of even date i.e. 27.01.2025 have Ludhiana, in both the cases. on petitions have been filed by the ) of the East Punjab Urban Rent , laying challenge to the orders passed by the learned Appellate lication(s) filed by the petitioner(s) record the subsequent events that peal by inspecting the premises of to submit a report along with the regarding the actual and factual issed. re that the respondent-Society filed 15 (Annexure P-1 in both petitions) iction of the petitioner(s) from the -950-2025) and Shop No. 5 (in ciety sought eviction of the ayment of rent, material alteration, separate orders of even date i.e. cases) passed by the learned Rent ere given 03 months time from to hand over vacant possession . 6 (in CR-950-2025) and Shop No. Society. It is pertinent to mention ave the ent llate that s of the tual filed the (in the i.e. ent rom sion No. tion RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 here that the the index in 4. of even date learned App appeal, the p (Annexure P events that a appeal(s); Authority, L 5. alia, submit Society had additional c Accordingly have prayed with detailed position at t was necessa petitioner(s) impugned or 6. vehemently refers to the 2025 (O&M) -3- hat the date of order has wrongly been ex in both the revision petitions. Being aggrieved, the petitioner n date i.e. 25.03.2019 (Annexure P d Appellate Authority, Ludhiana. D the petitioner(s) filed the present ap xure P-7, in both cases) for bringin that are stated to be have happened which applications were dismiss rity, Ludhiana, vide order(s) impugned Learned counsel for the petitio ubmit that during the pendency of t y had carried out extensive reno nal construction in the Mandir C ly, by filing the application(s) (An rayed for appointment of a building e etailed site plan and photographs reg at the spot as on date. It is conten ecessary for the proper adjudication ner(s). As such, dismissal of the pe ned orders dated 27.01.2025 is unsusta Learned counsel for the ently opposes the prayer made on b to the rent petition (Annexure P-1, in ly been mentioned as 12.02.2018 in itioner(s) filed two separate appeals ure P-6, in both cases) before the ana. During the pendency of the ent application(s) dated 16.11.2024 bringing on record the subsequent ppened during the pendency of the ismissed by the learned Appellate ugned herein. petitioner(s) (in both cases), inter y of the appeal(s), the respondent- renovation, re-construction and dir Complex of Shri Raghunath. (s) (Annexure P-6), the petitioner(s) ding expert to submit a report along hs regarding the actual and factual contended that the said information ation of the appeal(s) filed by the the petitioners’ application(s) vide nsustainable. the Caveator-respondent-Society, on behalf of the petitioner(s) and 1, in both cases) to submit that it in eals the the 024 uent the llate ter and er(s) long tual tion the vide iety, and at it RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 has been spe requires the Hall. Admit allowed by t undertaken respondent illegal is bei any subsequ for expansio been got vac the Hall if, th 7. cases) are m petitioner(s) out that the a since March prayed for. 8. either of the 9. case file in g 10. find no meri such, nothing 2025 (O&M) -4- specifically pleaded therein that th es the shops in question/demised pr Admittedly, the rent petitions of th d by the Rent Controller. As such, the aken. It is submitted that the renovati dent Society in accordance with law is being done by the respondent-Soci bsequent events; the respondent-Socie pansion; and it is for this reason that a ot vacated as the respondent-Society ll if, the shops are not vacated. It is further submitted that the p are misuse of the process of law ner(s) only to delay the proceedings at the appeal(s) filed by the petitioner( March, 2019. Accordingly, dismissa for. No other argument has been of the parties. I have heard learned counsel fo ile in great detail. The facts in brief have already o merit in the submissions made on b nothing illegal is being done by the res the respondent-Society urgently sed premises for expansion of the of the respondent–Society stand ch, the present renovations are being novation is being carried out by the th law. It is contended that nothing Society. It is denied that there are Society requires shops in question that all the shops No. 5 to 11 have ociety is not in a position to expand t the present application(s) (in both f law and has been filed by the dings in the appeal(s). It is pointed tioner(s) (in both cases) are pending ismissal of the present petition is raised by learned counsel for sel for the parties and perused the lready been noticed here-in-above. I e on behalf of the petitioner(s). As the respondent society. A perusal of the tand eing the hing are tion ave and both the nted ding n is ve. I As of RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 the rent pet categorically that: ‘for th people coul independent the persons the Hall afte no. 5 to 11 s access to the large shall b the hall roo shops are b ejectment pe ground’. Th ejectment of Hall. Admit cases) passe had been di question i.e. 2025), on th shops No. 7 and expansi expansion/ex same cannot 2025 (O&M) -5- nt petition (Annexure P-1, in both rically pleaded case of the responden r the extension/expansion of the H could be accommodated. The Ha dent access from the main Ferozep ons who have to attend the Kriya a l after crossing the Deodi of the Ma 11 shall be utilized for the expansio o the Hall from the main Ferozepur all be benefited from this. The shop room and is most suitable space f re bona fide required by the pet nt petitions have been filed agains Thus, the clear purpose of the re ent of the petitioner(s) from the demi Admittedly, vide order dated 12.02.2 passed by the learned Rent Controlle een directed to be ejected from the on i.e. Shop No. 6 (in CR-950-2025) , on the ground that the demised pre No. 7 to 11 were required by the resp xpansion of the Hall. Pursuant ther extensions being carried out by cannot be termed to be a subsequent both cases), shows that it is the pondent-Society in para 11 thereof he Hall so that more number of Hall at present does not have ozepur, G.T. road, Ludhiana. All ya and Satsang etc. have to enter e Mandir. The space of the shops nsion of the Hall and independent epur Road. The general public in shops no. 5 to 11 are adjacent to ace for extension of Hall. All the petitioner society and separate ainst other tenants also on this the respondent-Society for seeking e demised shops is for extension of 2.02.2019 (Annexure P-5, in both ntroller, Ludhiana, the petitioner(s) m the demised premises/shops in 2025) and Shop No. 5 (in CR-951- ed premises/shops along with other he respondent-Society for extension thereto, the present renovation/ ut by the respondent-Society. The quent event. Even the petitioner(s) the reof of ve All ter ps nt in to he te his king n of both er(s) s in ther sion er(s) RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 can have no construction effect that th of the case. in what man the present a by the petitio 11. Nos. 950 and 12. both cases) 13. connected ca 14.02.2025 rishu 2025 (O&M) -6- ave no grievance to the same. As s uction is required. The report procur that the construction is not as per plan case. It is not for the petitioner(s) to at manner to carry out the said extens esent application(s) (Annexure P-7, in petitioner(s) just to delay the proceedi In view of the above, both the re 50 and 951-2025 are dismissed. Pending application(s) if any a ases). A photocopy of this order be cted case. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable As such, no report regarding the procured by the petitioner(s) to the er plan has no bearing on the merits r(s) to direct the respondent-Society extension. Therefore, it is clear that 7, in both cases) have been filed oceedings in the appeal(s). h the revision petitions bearing CR any also stand(s) disposed of (in er be placed on the file of other ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the the erits iety that filed RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.