133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 12.01.2026 Pronounced on: 31.01.2026 Uploaded on: 02.02.2026 RAVINDER PAL ...Petitioner Vs.

HARMINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Anmol Ratan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, (Through V.C) and Mr. Kanishk Swaroop, Advocate, in person for the petitioner.

Mr. Narinder Kumar Vadhera, Advocate, for the caveators/respondents.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana and Impugned Orders dated 09.10.2023 and 01.09.2023 (Annexures P-7 & P-5) passed by Rent Authority in Rent Petition under Section 24(3) Punjab Rent Act, 1995, whereby application of petitioner/tenant seeking leave to contest under section 38(7)(b) of Rent Act and a subsequent review has been dismissed and eviction of the petitioner has been ordered.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the father of the petitioner, namely Pyare Lal, was inducted as a ₹

tenant in respect of four shops by Amarjit Singh at a monthly rent of 1,700/-. Amarjit Singh passed away on 27.01.2005, leaving behind respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. On 25.02.2020, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, asserting that they intend to permanently settle at Ludhiana. The petitioner, in response, filed an application under Section 38(7)(b) of the Act seeking leave to contest the said eviction petition before the Rent Authority. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2023. The review petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2023. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2025. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

3. The petition has been duly contested by the respondents, who, after filing a caveat, have put in appearance through their counsel and opposed the maintainability as well as the merits of the petition.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Authorities are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was argued that the authorities below failed to consider the material fact that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are already in possession of three other vacant shops as well as a vacant area situated behind the said shops. Despite availability of such alternative accommodation, the respondents neither own nor conduct any business, thereby rendering their alleged requirement wholly unjustified and not genuine.

6 It was further contended that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not returned to India and have no immediate intention to do so. Learned counsel asserted that the respondents cannot be treated as Non-Resident Indians merely on the ground that they are holders of Canadian passports. It was also argued that the learned authorities failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the disputed premises for more than 43 years. According to the petitioner, the alleged requirement of the respondents is not bona fide but merely a wishful desire aimed at securing eviction of the petitioner from the premises. On these grounds, it was prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders or in the pleadings as appreciated by the learned Rent Authorities. It was contended that the application for leave to contest was rightly dismi