IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.02.2026 Bishamber Lal Ahuja and Another ....Petitioners Versus Arun Kumar Jain ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Dr. Praveen Hans, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Lamba, Advocate, and Mr. Shrome Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The tenants are in revision against the eviction order passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 13.12.2007 affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 18.12.2009.

2. The respondent-landlord had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenants, averring therein that he was owner and landlord of the shop (as detailed in the head note of the petition), situated opposite Gurudwara and Golcha Tailor, Railway Road, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised premises’). It was further asserted that petitioner No.1 (Bishamber Lal Ahuja) had been a tenant in the demised premises under an oral agreement on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- for the business of dry cleaning of clothes. Ejectment was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent for the period 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2005 amounting to Rs.10,800/-, subletting and the petitioners having caused material alterations in the demised premises by covering the open verandah and merging it with the demised premises. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had parted with possession of the demises premises in favour of Surender Kumar, sub-letee (petitioner No.2), without any written consent of the respondent-landlord.

3. The petitioner-tenants filed their joint written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel and the respondent-landlord not having approached the Court with clean hands.

3.1 On merits, the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, so was the rate of rent. However, it was asserted that the arrears of rent had already been tendered. The factum of delivering the possession of the demised premises to petitioner No.2-Surender Kumar, was denied and it was asserted that he had no concern with the tenancy of the demised premises. It was further averred that petitioner No.1 had taken another shop on rent near Hansi Gate, Adarsh College Market due to increase in volume of work. It was also denied that any alteration had been made in the demised premises.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

“1. Whether respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent? OPA

2. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground of sub-letting as alleged?

OPA

3. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground that they have (sic) impaired the value and utility of the building?

OPA

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

5. Whether the petitioner has no locus-standi nor has any cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

6. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present petition?

OPR

7. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

8. Whether the respondents are entitled for special cost under Section 35A CPC? OPR

9. Relief.

5. Vide order dated 13.12.2027, the Rent Controller, allowed the eviction petition on the ground of subletting directing the petitioner-tenants to vacate the demised premises within a period of two months. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated

18.12.2009, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners has submitted that both Courts gravely erred in holding it to be a case of subletting. It has been submitted that it had duly been proved on record that both Bishamber Lal