131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.01.2026 MUKHTIAR SINGH ...Petitioner VERSUS SHRI BHAGWAN ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority vide which petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as respondent) has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises in a petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Act) instituted by respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) in Rent Petition No.RP-29-2018 titled as “Sri Bhagwan vs. Mukhtiar Singh”, vide judgments dated

02.11.2023 and 02.01.2026.

2. The case of petitioner/landlord is that he is owner-cum- landlord of the demised shop situated at Dinod Chowk, Bhiwani, near Tibrewala Sabhakar, in which the respondent is a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.500/- including taxes. The petitioner requires the shop in question for his own use and occupation for doing the business of selling tea and confectionery items. The petitioner is not in possession of any other shop nor he has vacated any other shop since the commencement of 1949 Act. Earlier, he was doing agricultural work but due to his old age, he is unable to do any agricultural work and now he intends to start business of selling tea in the shop in question. His house is also situated behind these shops and it is more suitable for starting the business. His son namely Rajesh has died and his two minor sons are residing with him as their mother has remarried. It is further submitted that petitioner has three more adjoining shops and two shops near Dinod Gate Chowk. He has mutually made settlement between his five sons. One shop was in the occupation of his son Mukesh, who has now died and his wife Sheela is occupying the said shop, which has been let out by her to a tenant at a ₹

monthly rent of 11,000/- and she is maintaining her two daughters as well out of that income. Another shop is in the occupation of his son Naresh, who is running a barber’s shop. Another shop has been given to his son Moti Ram, who has reconstructed it and has let out the ground portion to a tenant and he is running a barber’s shop on the upper storey. Two shops at Dinod Chowk, Bhiwani are under the occupation of his another son Hanuman, which have been let out to tenants and Hanuman is receiving the rent of those shops which fell in his share in the family settlement. The petitioner requested the respondent to vacate that demised shop but he kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and has refused to vacate the same, which necessitated the present petition.

3. Respondent/tenant in his reply has opposed the petition on the grounds of concealment of facts, petition being bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of parties and estoppel etc. It is submitted that petition in hand has been instituted with malafide intention and an ulterior motive just to get the respondent ejected from the shop. The petition has been filed out of greed as there is increase in the rents of the nearby shops but petitioner does not require the same for his own use and occupation. He has three more shops situated nearby the present shop. The petitioner is habitual of filing such petitions and his earlier petition has already been dismissed. Petitioner is an aged person and cannot do any business. In case, he needs the shop, he should get the property back from his other sons also. Denying the other averments, dismissal of the petition was sought.

4. Replication was filed and the following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected and to handover vacant possession of the shop to the petitioner on the ground as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the petition