##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-1284-2016(O&M)

Date of order: January 28, 2026

Surinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Kaushaliya Devi and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present: Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashish Gupta and Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bidhan, Advocates

for respondents No.1 and 2.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

The petitioner-tenant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction

Act, assailing the judgment dated 07.01.2016 passed by learned Appellate

Authority, whereby, the order of dismissal of the eviction petition dated

16.01.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, was set aside and eviction

petition, as such, was allowed.

The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, the respondents-landlords had filed an application under Section

13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, against the petitioner-

tenant, on the ground of non-payment of rent, house tax and demised shop

being required by the landlords, for their bonafide personal necessity. As

VINEET GULATI

2026.02.02 12:49

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-1284-2016 -2-

per the version set up, Smt.Kaushaliya Devi-respondent No.1 along with her

husband Dharamvir had purchased building bearing NO.278/9 old, 2720

new, Balmiki Chowk, opposite PSEB Office, Jandiala Guru vide two

registered sale deeds, in equal share. Dharamvir, after the purchase of the

building, had let out one shop, which formed the part of the building to the

petitioner-tenant for running business of tea stall at the rate of Rs.500/- per

month, vide rent note dated 29.12.1989, executed by the tenant, in favour of

Dharamvir. Said Dharamvir died on 12.10.1995, leaving behind the

respondents and another son, namely Manish Kumar. As per the version set

up, the rent was not paid, in accord with the terms settled and as such, the

petitioner-tenant was under arrears of rent.

Besides the same, the respondents-landlords had asserted about the

requirement of the shop by respondent No.1 bonafide, for her own use and

occupation as well as for the use of her younger son, namely Manish

Kumar, who, at present, was doing business along with his elder brother, of

the sale of bedroom accessories and he wanted to start the same business, in

the demised shop. Moreover, respondent No.1 is too old and had been

residing in her matrimonial house, who does not want to leave her house to

reside with her sons at Panipat, as her whole life sentiments are attached

with her house and there is no one to look after her and she wants to bring

her younger son back to Jandiala Guru and to start the said business to earn

bread. The respondents have not vacated any non-residential property,

within the limits of Amritsar.

In reply, the petitioner-tenant had raised preliminary objections,

thereby, disputing the maintainability of the petition as well as there to be

VINEET GULATI

2026.02.02 12:49

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-1284-2016 -3-

concealment of the material facts, at the instance of the landlords and also

not having come to the Court with clean hands, the application being false

and frivolous and that, he is regularly making payment of the rent.

On merits, the extent of rent payable was denied. So far as, the

requirement of the shop for personal necessity is concerned, it was denied

that there was any need of respondent No.1, because she is an old lady,

physically unable to do any work and the requirement of the shop, for the

use and occupation of younger son Manish Kumar, was also denied. In fact,

it was also pleaded that Manish Kumar is having family dispute and as such,

he is residing separate for the last several years in Panipat. He is having six

shops in Panipat, where he is running his business and also has a factory

there. He does not have any desire to come to Amritsar, as he has

flourishing business in Panipat.

Further, the petitioner-ten