IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (117)

Date of Decision:-12.02.2026 JOGINDER SINGH … Petitioner Versus RANJIT KAUR ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner/respondent assailing the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Rent Controller and the order dated 08.10.2025 rendered by the learned Appellate Authority, whereby the ejectment petition filed by the respondent/petitioner was allowed and the petitioner/respondent was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised shop on the ground of bona fide personal necessity.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/petitioner instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner/respondent from the demised shop. It was pleaded that the respondents were inducted as tenants at a monthly rent of ₹

1,700/- and had fallen into arrears of rent with effect from 01.05.2023. It was further averred that the demised premises were required for the bona fide personal necessity of the respondent/petitioner, as she, along with her daughter, intended to commence and run a boutique business therein. It was specifically asserted that she was neither occupying any other non- residential building nor had vacated any such premises within the urban area of Jalandhar since the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

3. The petitioner/respondent contested the ejectment petition, inter alia, on the plea that the rent had been paid up to date and that no arrears were outstanding. The claim of bona fide personal necessity was also disputed, it being alleged that the respondent/petitioner was in possession of several other commercial properties and, therefore, had no genuine requirement of the demised premises.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a replication, wherein the pleas and objections raised in the written statement were specifically traversed and denied, and the averments contained in the ejectment petition were duly reaffirmed and reiterated.

4.1. Upon a careful and comprehensive consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the rival assertions advanced therein, the learned Rent Controller, for the purpose of delineating the real points in controversy and facilitating an orderly adjudication, proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the petitioner is in the arrears of rent?OPP

2. Whether the disputed premises is required to the petitioner for his bona fide necessity?OPP

3. Whether the present petition of the petitioner is not maintainable?

OPR

4. Whether the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the court?OPR 5. Relief.

5. Pursuant to the framing of issues, both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective stands. Upon an overall appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record, the ejectment petition was allowed and the appeal was dismissed.

5.1 Aggrieved by the orders so passed, the present revision petition has been instituted, assailing the findings recorded by the learned Rent Authorities primarily on the ground that both the Courts below have failed to properly consider the alleged availability of another shop with the petitioner and the effect thereof on the claim of bona fide necessity.

5.2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have minutely perused the record of the case.

6. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Appellate Authority has duly considered the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties. In her cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that four shops had been owned by her and constructed portion above the shop in question measuring 20 feet × 20 feet, was lying vacant. While the existence of other shops was not disputed, it was c