CR-3397-2019(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3397-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 09.09.2025 Shanti Devi and others … Petitioners Versus Sanatan Dharam Sabha and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) This is tenants’ revision petition against judgment/order dated 06.04.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority, Fazilka, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners-tenants against judgment/order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Rent Controller, Abohar, vide which the eviction petition preferred by the respondents-landlords under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Rent Act’) for eviction of the petitioners-tenants from property measuring 68'x40', consisting of seven rooms, a veranda, a bathroom, a staircase and an open yard on the ground floor, and three rooms with a terrace on the first floor (fully described in the eviction petition), situated in Abohar, District Fazilka (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the demised premises’). 2. The case set up was that respondent/petitioner No.1-Sanatan Dharam Sabha (S.D. Sabha) was a registered society and petitioner No.2- RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:10 I am approving this document CR-3397-2019(O&M) 2 Sanatan Dharam Putri Pathshala was functioning under respondent No.1- landlord and was owner and landlord of the demised premises. The property had been rented out to one Mangat Rai, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-tenants, at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. Upon the death of Mangat Rai, the petitioners-tenants inherited tenancy. 2.1 The demised premises was vacated in the year 2005, and the petitioners-tenants shifted to Sirsa. Possession had also been handed over. The demised premises was said to be 90 years old and had collapsed having outlived its age in the month of August, 2011. However, one of the petitioners-tenants, namely, Sudhir Sharma, was adamant to raise construction, as a result of which a suit for permanent injunction was filed. Sudhir Sharma claimed tenancy, but the application for injunction was declined. 3. Eviction was sought on the following grounds; i) Non-payment of rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.1997 till the filing of the eviction petition; ii) The demised premises being required by the respondents- landlords for their personal use and occupation, specifically for the purpose of running a school to provide education and other facilities for children; and iii) The demised premises having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. 4. It was averred that despite many requests, the petitioners- tenants did not vacate the demises premises, as a result of which, the eviction petition was instituted. RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:10 I am approving this document CR-3397-2019(O&M) 3 5. The eviction petition was opposed by the petitioners-tenants. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections were raised as regards maintainability, locus standi, absence of cause of action, concealment of material facts, and that the respondents-landlords were neither the owners nor landlords of the demised premises and, therefore, they were not competent to file the eviction petition. It was also averred that another petition had also been filed on the same grounds in 1993, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Abohar, on 07.11.1997. Even in that case, the respondents-landlords had failed to prove themselves as the owners or landlords of the demised premises. 5.1 It was also averred that one Gokal Chand was the landlord of the petitioners-tenants and had rented out the demised premises to Sh. Mangat Rai at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. After the death of Mangat Rai, his legal heirs come into possession. Gokal Chand also expired and his legal heirs became the landlords. It was claimed that the respondents had no concern with the demised premises. 5.2. On merits also, all grounds of eviction were denied. It was denied that the petitioners-tenants were in arrears of rent or that the demised premises was required for the personal use and occupation of the respondents-landlords, or that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Replication was filed, in which the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the eviction petition were reiterated. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 05.07.2013: RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:10 I am approving this document CR-3397-2019(O&M) 4 “1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA 2. Whether the respondent is regular defaulter and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.11.1997? OPP 3. Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation? OPP 4. Whether the demised premises is unsafe and unfit for human habitation? OPP 5. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 6. Relief.” 7. Parties led their respective evidence. 8. Vide judgment/order dated 25.07.2017, passed by the Rent Controller, Abohar, the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act was allowed. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants was dismissed vide judgment/order dated 06.04.2019, leading to the filing of the present revision petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Mr. Rakesh Sobti, learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants, has strenuously urged that both Courts have gravely erred in allowing the eviction petition. He submits that the respondents were neither the owners of the demised premises nor the landlords of the petitioners. He further submits that respondent No.2 was not authorized to institute the instant petition nor was it authorized to institute the eviction petition. It has also been submitted that respondent No.2 is not a registered body. It has further been submitted RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:10 I am approving this document CR-3397-2019(O&M) 5 that even respondent No.1 is not a registered body and the certificate of registration does not pertain to respondent No.1. 10.1 Learned counsel also submits that even the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been proved. 10.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants has referred to the impugned judgments/orders and submits that the same are not sustainable and perverse findings have been recorded. 11. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the concurrent findings recorded by both Courts. Learned counsel has referred to the judgments/orders in detail and contends that eviction was rightly ordered by both Courts. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 13. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be essential to mention that both Courts have given detailed and well-reasoned judgments, which have thoroughly been perused. No illegality, much less perversity, is found in the said judgments. It has to be borne in mind that in revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings are not ordinarily to be disturbed unless and until they are found to be perverse. 14. Be that as it may, first, regarding the competence of the respondents-landlords to institute the eviction petition, a certificate of registration (Ex. A1) was produced, which is in the name of SD Sabha. The argument that SD Sabha is not Sanatan Dharam Sabha is fallacious and hard to accept without any supporting evidence. Still further, respondent No.2 was stated to be functioning under respondent No.1 and, therefore, RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:10 I am approving this document CR-3397-2019(O&M) 6 independent registration was not required. AW1 Sanjay Gupta and AW2 Pramil Kalani duly stated in their cross-examination that respondent No.2 was an affiliated society of respondent No.1. A lot of hue and cry was raised as regards ownership of the demised premises. The revenue record did show that the Sanatan Dharam Putri Pathshala at one point of time was being represented by its President, Gokal Chand. It was pleaded by the petitioners- tenants that after the death of Gokal Chand, his legal heirs has succeeded him and become their landlords. However, no such evidence was brought on record during the trial nor the names of any legal representatives were disclosed. Still further, in eviction proceedings, the question of ownership would not be relevant and only the issue of landlord-tenant relationship would be relevant. 15. In fact, in an earlier eviction petition, which was dismissed on 07.11.1997, the petitioners-tenants had put in appearance through their counsel and had tendered rent. The Appellate Court duly noticed this fact. One of the petitioners-tenants, namely, Sudhir Sharma, stepped in the witness-box in the present case and admitted that at the time of tendering of rent, they had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. 16. Even in the suit of permanent injunction, Sudhir Sharma had claimed himself to be a tenant in the written statement filed as Ex.RW1/A. An attempt to amend the written statement was made, but the same was declined. 17. In view of the aforesaid, it was rightly held that respondent No.1-Sanatan Dharam Sabha had been admitted to be the landlord. RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:10 I am approving this document CR-3397-2019(O&M) 7 Accordingly, it was correctly found that there was no defect in maintainability of eviction petition. 18. As regards the grounds of eviction, once the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied, no provisional assessment of rent was rightly done. Ultimately, the petitioners-tenants were found to be in arrears of rent. As such, their eviction was rightly ordered on the ground of arrears of rent. 19. As regards the demised premises having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, Architect Ajit Wadhwa submitted his report as Ex.A32, along with photographs of the demised premises. It was stated that demised premises was approximately 100 years old and that every part of it had outlived its life. Since, it was the stand of the petitioners-tenants that the demised premises was in good condition, a Local Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the demised premises and found that it had outlived its age and had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. 20. The Appellate Authority also found that the demised premises were essentially being used to run a school, but from the condition of the building, it was evident that it was no longer being used for any purpose on account of its dilapidated condition. 21. The ground of personal necessity was rightly accepted, for, the case set up by the respondents-landlords was that they intended to run a school. It is well known that Sanatan Dharam Sabha does run educational institutions and, therefore, the need cannot be said to be not bonafide. Accordingly, both Courts rightly allowed the eviction on this ground. RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:10 I am approving this document CR-3397-2019(O&M) 8 22. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgments under challenge and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 23. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Vikram Aggarwal ) Judge September 9, 2025 Rajan Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.12 18:10 I am approving this document