CR-755-2026 IN THE HIGH 116 Reeta Rani @ Ri Jatinder Singh an CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t Mr. for r *** AMARINDER S 1. The 227 of the Const the learned Rent the respondent N Restriction Act, the petitioners- demised premise Court vide which 19.04.2018 passe dismissed. 2. The that respondent N dispute, which w -1- IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H @ Rita Rani and another Versus ngh and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advoca for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present civil revision petition Constitution of India challenging the Rent Controller, Garhshankar, wher dent No.1-landlord under Section 13 Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as -tenants have been directed to ha ises and the order dated 20.11.2025 which appeal filed by the petitioners passed by the learned Rent Contro The brief facts necessary for adjudi dent No.1 claimed himself to be a co hich was initially let out to Sarabjit Sin ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.755 of 2026 (O&M Reserved on:23.03.2026 Pronounced on:27.03.2026 Uploaded on:30.03.2026 ... Petitioners ... Respondent MARINDER SINGH GREWAL dvocate tition has been preferred under Artic g the order dated 19.04.2018 passed b , whereby the eviction petition filed b ion 13 of the East Punjab Urban Re to as “the Act”) has been allowed an to hand over vacant possession of th 1.2025 passed by the learned Appella oners against the order of eviction date Controller, Garhshankar has also bee adjudication of the present petition a a co-owner and landlord of the shop bjit Singh, predecessor-in-interest of th GARH (O&M) 2026 dents Article ssed by d by an Rent ed and n of the ppellate n dated so been ition are shop in st of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-755-2026 petitioners, at a m the petitioners st premises as tenan on the grounds 01.06.2009, that respondent No.1 intended to retur premises along w 3. Upo petition by filin maintainability, l merits, it was ple ₹1000/- per mon limits of Mahilp and that respond Shamlat Deh. Th ground that he w 4. The framed the neces returned finding petitioners vide o order by the pe passed by the lea 5. Lear by contending th -2- , at a monthly rent of ₹1000/-. After stepped into his shoes and contin s tenants. Respondent No.1 sought ev ounds that they had fallen into ar , that they were habitual defaulter t No.1 required the premises for his urn to his native place and start long with adjoining shops. Upon notice, the petitioners-tenan filing a written statement raising ility, locus standi of respondent No.1 as pleaded that the agreed rate of re r month, that the property in dispute ahilpur and, therefore, the provision espondent No.1 was not the owner eh. The bonafide necessity of respond t he was well settled abroad. The learned Rent Controller, on the necessary issues and after appreciatin indings in favour of respondent No vide order dated 19.04.2018 and the he petitioners has also been dismiss the learned Appellate Court. Hence, th Learned counsel for the petitioners ing that the findings recorded by the After the demise of the original tenan continued in possession of the demise ght eviction of the petitioners primari nto arrears of rent with effect fro faulters in payment of rent and th r his bona fide personal necessity as h start his own business in the demise tenants appeared and contested th ising preliminary objections regardin t No.1 and applicability of the Act. O of rent was ₹500/- per month and n ispute did not fall within the municip visions of the Act were not applicabl wner of the property, the same bein espondent No.1 was also denied on th on the basis of pleadings of the partie eciating the evidence led by both side nt No.1 and ordered eviction of th nd the appeal preferred against the sa ismissed vide order dated 20.11.202 nce, the instant revision petition. oners had assailed the impugned orde y the learned Rent Controller as well a l tenant, demised rimarily ct from nd that ty as he demised ted the garding Act. On and not unicipal plicable, e being d on the parties, th sides, of the the said 11.2025 d orders well as PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-755-2026 the learned Appe suffer from mat wrongly assessed The learned Ren as the disputed the provisions o pleaded the nece the Act and thus contention, he re Banke Ram Vs. passed by Coord 2018(2) RentLR (Rent) 528 and 6. It w to consider the f consolidated rent the landlord forc No.1 through a f the application amendment of th an unjust and ar liberal approach amendment appli the appellate sta passed by the Ho -3- Appellate Court are erroneous, con material irregularity. It was argued sessed and respondent No.1 had failed d Rent Controller had not the jurisdic uted premises does not fall within the ions of the Act. It was further argue e necessary ingredients of clauses (b) d thus, the rent petition was liable to , he relied upon the judgment passed a Vs. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi 1977(1 Coordinate Benches of this Court in tLR 593; Joginder Singh Sawhney and Shankar Lal Vs. Madan Lal and It was further argued that both the r the fact that the tenancy included th ed rent of ₹1000/- per month and that d forcibly and illegally. The eviction gh a forged and fabricated power of ation filed by the petitioners under t of the written statement was dismiss arbitrary manner, despite the fac roach ought to have been applied b t applications and there is no prohibit ate stage. In support of his contenti the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishwa s, contrary to evidence on record, an argued that the rate of rent has bee failed to establish bona fide necessit urisdiction to entertain the rent petitio hin the municipal limits so as to attra argued that respondent No.1 had n es (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a) (i) o ble to be dismissed. In support of h assed a Division Bench of this Court 77(1) RCR (Rent) 595 and judgmen urt in Thakar Dass Vs. Madan Moha hney Vs. Harbans Lal 2003(1) RC l and others 2011 (1) RCR(Rent) 139 th the learned Courts below have faile ded the shop as well as the taur for d that the taur area was got vacated b viction petition was filed by responde er of attorney. It was also argued th under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seekin ismissed by learned Appellate Court he fact that there is settled law that lied by the Courts while deciding th rohibition to permit amendment even ntention, he relied upon the judgme shwardas Vs. The State of M.P. an ord, and as been ecessity. petition, o attract had not a) (i) of rt of his Court in dgments ohan ) RCR t) 139. e failed for a ated by pondent ued that seeking Court in that a ing the even at dgment . and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-755-2026 others AIR 1979 (deceased) throu (2) PLR 438. prove bona fide already got vaca respondent No.1 there is no evide return to India an 7. Per supported the im appreciation of petitioners have f below and that no 8. I ha carefully gone th 9. The has no merit. Th the rate of rent w earlier rent petitio the rate of ₹1000 tender. Significa show that they h In the absence o rent was ₹500/- -4- 1979 SC 551 and the judgment pass hrough LRs Vs. Sunita (deceased) Furthermore, the respondent No.1 fide need of starting a business, kee t vacated eight shops in the vicinity t No.1-landlord is an NRI, being perm evidence available on record to dep dia and run a business at his native pla Per contra, learned counsel for the impugned orders and submitted tha n of evidence and settled legal prin have failed to substantiate their pleas a that no ground for interference is made I have heard learned counsel for one through the record of the case. The contention raised by the petitio The learned Rent Controller has re rent was ₹1000/- per month. This fin t petitions filed between the parties, the ₹1000/- per month and the said peti nificantly, the petitioners have not p they had ever sought recovery of any e of any documentary evidence su - per month, the Rent Controller w nt passed by this Court in Daljit Sing sed) through LRs and another 201 t No.1-landlord had miserably failed ss, keeping in view the fact that he ha icinity of the demised premises. Th g permanently settled in Australia an to depict that he has any intention tive place. l for respondent No.1-landlord ted that the same are based upon prop al principles. It is contended that th pleas as taken before the learned Cour is made out in revisional jurisdiction. el for the parties at length and hav petitioners pertaining to the rate of re has recorded a categorical finding th his finding is based on the fact that ies, the respondents had tendered rent id petitions were withdrawn upon suc not placed on record any material f any alleged excess rent paid by them nce supporting the plea that the agree oller was justified in drawing an advers Singh r 2017 failed to t he had s. The a and ntion to has n proper that the d Courts tion. d have of rent ing that t that in d rent at on such terial to y them. agreed adverse PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-755-2026 inference against the learned Appe 10. The ground that the p rejected. The pe categorically dep limits of Mahilp unshaken in cro evidence to rebu Controller regard for no interferen Revision Petition Narinder Singh rejected the cont fall within the m not mentioned in the learned Rent entire municipal within the mun automatically. 11. This learned counsel specifically plead that he was not o and he has not -5- gainst the respondents and the said f Appellate Court. The further contention regarding no t the premises does not fall within mu he petitioner examined an official f lly deposed that the property in que ahilpur and is assessed to house ta in cross-examination. The responde o rebut the said official record. Thus, regarding applicability of the Act is ba erference. Furthermore, a Coordinat etition No.2985 of 2011 titled as ngh Bains and other connected ca e contention of petitioners therein tha the municipal limits of Mahilpur as t ned in the notification dated 11.01.199 Rent Controller that the provisions icipal area of Mahilpur and once it is municipal area, the provisions o lly. This Court also does not find any unsel for the petitioners that resp y pleaded in his petition seeking evic s not occupying another residential bui as not vacated such a building wi said finding was correctly affirmed b ing non-applicability of the Act on th hin municipal limits also deserves to b ficial from the Nagar Panchayat, wh in question falls within the municip use tax. This testimony has remaine pondents have failed to produce an Thus, the finding recorded by the Re ct is based on cogent evidence and cal rdinate Bench of this Court in Civ as Narinder Kumar and another V ted cases decided on 17.05.2011 ha ein that the demised premises does n ur as the disputed khasra numbers we .01.1993, while affirming the finding o isions of the Act are applicable to th ce it is shown that a building is locate ions of the Act become applicab any merit in the contention raised b t respondent No.1-landlord had n g eviction under Section 13 of the A tial building in the urban area concerne ng without sufficient cause after th rmed by t on the es to be at, who unicipal emained uce any he Rent nd calls in Civil er Vs. 011 has oes not rs were nding of e to the located plicable aised by had not the Act ncerned fter the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-755-2026 commencement o for non-complian careful perusal o that he has specif place in the twil including the de which separate e had not vacated other place in his clauses (b) and counsel for the p of an issue wou However, in a sit parties have proc difficult to comp caused prejudice prejudice was ca evidence materia Ram Narain Aro “11 matt is no easy lack case plac we a -6- ment of this Act, in the said urban are mpliance of clauses (b) and (c) of S rusal of the petition filed by responde specifically averred that, being an NR e twilight years of his life and, for the demised premises, to establish a arate eviction petitions have been file cated any commercial building in the in his life time. Thus, this Court doe ) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of t r the petitioners. The absence of spec e would become material only wher in a situation where the material facts e proceeded to trial with full awaren comprehend how any deficiency in judice. The petitioners have utterly was caused to them, or that they wer aterial to the outcome of the case. Arora versus Asha Rani (1999) 1 S “11. There cannot be a pedantic matter of analysis of pleadings or o is no doubt true that if the pleading easy for the court to decide the m lacking or vague and if both partie case pleaded and put forth with ref placed such material before the cou we analyse from this angle, we do n an area, thus, the petition itself was ba ) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. spondent No.1–landlord clearly revea an NRI, he intends to settle at his nativ , for that purpose, requires the shop lish a business for his livelihood, fo en filed. It was further averred that h in the urban area of Mahilpur or at an urt does not find any non-compliance o ) of the Act as contended by learne f specific pleadings or the non-framin where it causes prejudice to a part l facts are evident on the record and th awareness of each other’s claims, it cy in pleadings could be said to hav utterly failed to demonstrate that an ey were prevented from producing an case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ) 1 SCC 141 has held as under:- ntic or a dogmatic approach in th or of the evidence adduced thereto. dings are clearly set out, it would b the matter. But if the pleadings a arties have understood what was th reference to requirement of law an e court, neither party is prejudiced. do not think that the High Court wa was bad Act. A reveals is native e shops, ood, for that he r at any iance of learned framing a party. and the s, it is to have hat any ing any ourt in in the eto. It uld be s are as the w and ced. If rt was PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-755-2026 not Con 12. The the petitioners fi statement on the pertained to the y learned Rent Con that they could despite due dilig to seek amendme learned Rent Con the power of atto 13. The necessity. The his native place Controller, upon The law relating India Insurance held that when occupation, the requirement is no when the landlor draw a presumpt said by courts tha else he can adju -7- not justified in interfering with Controller.” The learned Appellate Court has rig ners filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CP on the ground that the facts, which p o the year 2011 whereas they had file nt Controller on 02.02.2012, thus, no could not incorporate the said infor e diligence. Further, there is no expla endment of the written statement dur nt Controller. Likewise, petitioners ha of attorney was a forged and fabricated The most crucial issue in the present The respondent No.1-landlord has ple place and start a business for hi , upon appreciation of evidence, has a lating to bona fide necessity is well s ance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119, when a landlord asserts that he req , the Rent Controller shall not proc t is not bona fide. When other conditi landlord shows a prima facie case, it sumption that the requirement of the ts that it is not for the tenant to dicta n adjust himself without getting poss ith the order made by the Re has rightly dismissed the application o 17 CPC for amendment of the writte hich petitioners wanted to incorpora ad filed the written statement before th us, no plausible explanation came for information in the written stateme explanation as to what prevented the nt during the course of trial before th ners have miserably failed to prove th ricated document. resent case is that of bona fide person has pleaded that he intends to return for his livelihood. The learned Re , has accepted the said plea as genuin well settled. In Sarla Ahuja v. Unite , the Hon’ble Supreme Court ha he requires his building for his ow t proceed on the presumption that th onditions of the clause are satisfied an se, it is open to the Rent Controller of the landlord is bona fide. It is ofte o dictate terms to the landlord as to ho g possession of the tenanted premise Rent ation of written orporate fore the e forth atement ed them fore the ove that personal eturn to d Rent genuine. United ourt has is own that the fied and roller to is often to how remises. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-755-2026 While deciding t quite unnecessar adjusted himself. settled abroad an Hon’ble Supreme 778 has held as u “19 prov the c It is and Sect cour genu prov genu requ tena part supp a po fide tena land is re 14. It is must be assessed Even if, during th size and with co -8- iding the question of bona fides of the cessary to make an endeavour as to h imself. Thus, the contention of the oad and, therefore, has no bona fide upreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa as under:- “19. …….In our view, there are in provisions for the tenants that when the court he would approach when h It is, of course, subject to the tenant and cogent evidence. In our view, i Section 13-B by the NRI landlords f court shall presume that the landlor genuine and bona fide. But this wo proving that in fact and in law the r genuine. A heavy burden would lie requirement of the landlord is not tenant will be called upon to gi particulars supported by docume support his plea in the affidavit itse a position to adjudicate and decide fide requirement of the landlord. A tenant would not be sufficient to re landlord's favour that his requirem is real and genuine.” It is a settled principle of law that sessed from the landlord’s perspectiv ring the pendency of the proceedings, ith comparable access comes into th of the requirement of the landlord, it as to how else the landlord could hav the petitioners that respondent No.1 need is misconceived. Further, t ajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SC re inbuilt protections in the releva henever the landlord would approac hen his need is genuine and bona fid nant's right to rebut it but with stron ew, in the proceeding taken up und rds for the ejectment of the tenant, th dlord's need pleaded in the petition s would not disentitle the tenant fro the requirement of the landlord is n d lie on the tenant to prove that t not genuine. To prove this fact th o give all the necessary facts an umentary evidence, if available, itself so that the Controller will be cide the question of genuine or bon d. A mere assertion on the part of th o rebut the strong presumption in th rement of occupation of the premis w that the requirement of the landlor pective and not from that of the tenan dings, another adjoining shop of simil into the possession of the landlord, th ord, it is ld have No.1 is ther, the 2 SCC levant roach a fide. strong under nt, the tion is t from is not at the ct the s and le, to l be in bona of the in the emises landlord tenant. f similar ord, the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-755-2026 tenant cannot in choice of suitabi tenant cannot dic need must be gen best judge of his 15. Upo the view that the Appellate Court principles. No pe which may war present revision p 16. How of two months fr an undertaking w arrears of rent. In order in accordan 17. Pend March 27, 2026 Pankaj* -9- not insist that the landlord should u uitability of the accommodation rests not dictate terms in this regard. What be genuine, bona fide, and not a mere of his own requirements. Upon a comprehensive consideratio at the findings recorded by the learne Court are based on proper appreciati No perversity, illegality, or material y warrant interference in revisional ision petition is devoid of merit and is However, in the interest of justice, th nths from today to vacate the demise king within a period of three weeks ent. In case of failure, respondent No. cordance with law. Pending misc. application, if any, als (AMARI , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ould utilize that premises instead. Th n rests solely with the landlord, and th What is essential is that the landlord mere pretext. The landlord remains th deration of the matter, this Court is o learned Rent Controller and the learne reciation of evidence and settled leg ial irregularity has been pointed o isional jurisdiction. Consequently, th and is hereby dismissed. tice, the petitioners are granted a perio emised premises, subject to their filin weeks in this regard and clearing a nt No.1 shall be at liberty to execute th ny, also stands disposed of. ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No ad. The and the ndlord’s ains the urt is of learned ed legal nted out tly, the riod ir filing ring all cute the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh