IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision :13.11.2025 Amar Nath (now deceased) through his LR …..Pe44oner Vs.

Parveen Kumar and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner.

Mr. Sarju Puri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kudrat Sarin, Advocate for the respondents/caveator.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Present revision pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on is directed by the tenants against the concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Courts below.

2. Landlord Parveen Kumar (respondent No.1 herein) had filed a pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on under Sec(cid:27)on 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric(cid:27)on Act seeking evic(cid:27)on of the tenants (present pe(cid:17)(cid:17)oner and proforma respondents) from the demised shop detailed in the head-note of the evic(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity.

3. The tenants contested the said pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on, even going to the extent of denying the rela(cid:27)onship of landlord and tenant.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, necessary issues were framed and both sides led their evidence. Upon apprecia(cid:27)on thereof, learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 05.03.2020, recorded categorical findings that:

(i) a rela(cid:27)onship of landlord and tenant existed between the par(cid:27)es; (ii) the tenants, despite having full knowledge that the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner-landlord had purchased the demised property in 2002, had not paid any rent for at least the last 18 years; and (iii) the landlord had successfully established his bona fide need for the demised premises.

On these findings, an order of ejectment was passed.

5. The appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide a detailed order dated 02.09.2025, thereby affirming the findings of the Rent Controller and maintaining the order of ejectment. The Appellate Authority further directed the tenants to pay mesne profits/user charges at the rate of ₹8,000/- per month to the landlord from the date of the evic(cid:27)on order i.e. 05.03.2020 (cid:27)ll delivery of actual possession of the demised property.

6. Before this Court, though learned counsel for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner- tenant ini(cid:27)ally a>empted to assail the concurrent findings, but a?er some (cid:27)me during the course of hearing, he fairly stated that in view of the nature of jurisdic(cid:27)on and the concurrent findings recorded by both Courts below, the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner confines his prayer only to seeking reasonable (cid:27)me of six months to vacate the premises, subject to the condi(cid:27)on that the landlord may not insist on recovery of arrears of mesne profits.

7. A?er obtaining instruc(cid:27)ons, learned counsel for the contes(cid:27)ng respondent-landlord (caveator) has submi>ed that, keeping in view the tenants’ conduct in not paying any rent for more than two decades, there is absolutely no jus(cid:27)fica(cid:27)on for direc(cid:27)ng the landlord to forego the arrears of mesne profits/user charges as awarded by the Appellate Authority. However, he has no objec(cid:27)on if some reasonable (cid:27)me is granted to the tenants to vacate the premises, provided the arrears and future user charges are duly paid.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the par(cid:27)es and have gone through the orders passed by the Courts below.

9. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that (a) the rela(cid:27)onship of landlord and tenant is proved, (b) rent has not been paid for a very long period, and (c) the landlord has established his bona fide requirement. The findings are based on proper apprecia(cid:27)on of the pleadings and evidence and no perversity, jurisdic(cid:27)onal error or misreading of material evidence has been pointed out. In fact, the tenant himself has not pressed any challenge on merits and has confined his submissions only to th