124+242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 02, 2026 SUBHASH CHANDER ........Petitioner Versus SURINDER KUMAR ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the respondent.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

CM-25346-CII-2025 This is an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of applicant/petitioner who has unfortunately died.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 2 of application are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of deceased-Subhash Chander-petitioner.

Amended memo of parties be taken on record.

MAIN CASE

1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to judgments dated 22.11.2011 and 27.05.2015 passed by the Authorities below whereby, an eviction petition preferred at the instance of deceased-landlord was allowed.

2. Briefly stating, the dispute relates to one shop comprised in property bearing No.B-II-S-44/24 situated at Kotwali Bazar, Hoshiarpur which was purchased by the respondent-landlord vide registered sale deed dated 14.09.1968. Admittedly, the respondent was living at Ahmedabad in relation to his employment and the possession of the shop in dispute was handed over to his brother-petitioner. The respondent retired from service on 28.02.1998 and intended to shift to Hoshiarpur for setting up of his own business. Accordingly, a suit for mandatory injunction was filed at the instance of respondent against the petitioner. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 on the ground that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

3. Faced with this, the respondent immediately on 27.11.2008 filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant(brother) while claiming his bona fide need qua the demised shop. It was pleaded that since the respondent-landlord intended to shift to Hoshiarpur along with his wife, he wanted to setup his own business of auto parts and as such, the demised shop was required for his personal bona fide need.

In response, the eviction petition was contested by the petitioner-tenant having disputed and denied the alleged need of the respondent-landlord.

4. The learned Rent Controller vide its decision dated 22.11.2011 passed an eviction order against the petitioner while holding that the demised shop was required for the bona fide need and occupation of the respondent-landlord as well as for the bona fide requirement of his son.

Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred rent appeal, however, the same came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority at Hoshiarpur vide its decision dated 27.04.2015, hence the present revision petition.

5. Impugning the aforementioned order passed by authorities below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the present revision petition, respondent-landlord died on 26.06.2016 and as such, the eviction petition preferred at the instance of respondent- landlord became infructuous as the only pleading therein was about his own bona fide requirement. He points out that the bona fide need of any of his sons was never pleaded by the respondent-landlord in the eviction petition. Learned counsel thus submits that respondent-landlord having died on 26.06.2016 during pendency of the present revision petition, the cause of action for bona fide need ceased to exist. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Seshambal (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Others” reported as 2010 LawSuit(SC) 55. Relevant paragraph No.9 thereof is extracted hereunder for reference:-

[9] It is not in dispute that in the eviction petition the owners had pleaded their own requirement for the premises to be occupied by them for residential as w