IN THE HI 229 Parveen Kum Ashok Kuma CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. laying chall Authorities Punjab Urba landlord was 2. that the pre disposed of respondent N 3. not disputed petitioner. 4. 5. having been 6. 06.05.2026 rishu E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H CR-14 Date o n Kumar @ Pawan Versus Kumar and another M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Akash Manocha, Advocate Ms. Rosy, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Bakshi, Advocate fo I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition ha challenge to the concurrent find rities below whereby the petition un Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 rd was accepted. At the very outset, learned coun present petition has been render ed of as such, as the possession of dent No. 1-landlord. Learned counsel appearing for r isputed the aforesaid submissions Heard. In view of the above, the prese been rendered infructuous. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1401-2017 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA vocate for the petitioner. cate for the respondent No. 1. tion has been filed by the petitioner t findings rendered by both the tion under Section 13 of the East 1949 filed by respondent No. 1/ d counsel for the petitioner submits rendered infructuous and may be n of the demised property is with g for respondent No. 1-landlord has sions of learned counsel for the e present petition is disposed of as any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No oner the East mits be with has the as RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.06 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.