IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 02.02.2026 ASHOK …. Petitioner Versus NAND KISHORE …. Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent.

* * * *

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, whereby the judgment dated 30.10.2019 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bhiwani, has been reversed.

2. The brief facts emanating from the pleadings of this petition are that the petitioner is the tenant in the shop in question which has been stated to be sold to the respondent and his brother, namely Sanjay Kumar by one Dr. Baijnath in equal share by virtue of sale deed No.19435 dated 30.08.1996. Subsequently, the half share owned by the brother of the respondent was also transferred to the respondent vide deed No.7129 dated 30.10.2014. The respondent sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.437.50 for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2017, which, despite repeated demands, had not been paid. The second ground raised by the respondent is that the said shop is required for his son to start a new separate business. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2019 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bhiwani. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, bearing RA-23-2019. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal on the ground of bona fide necessity, directing the petitioner-tenant to hand over vacant and physical possession of the shop in question to the respondent-landlord within a period of two months from the date of judgment dated 28.07.2025.

3. Heard.

4. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 30.10.2019 are reproduced hereinbelow:

“11. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of arrears of rent for one month from 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2017 and personal necessity. As regard the first ground of arrears of rent of one month is concerned, the petitioner has failed to prove this ground as no sufficient evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove as to what is the exact rate of rent and that respondent has not paid the rent despite demand. The petitioner has claimed the rate of rent as Rs.437.50 per month, whereas regarding another shop, which is adjacent to the demised shop and is occupied by Radhey Shyam RW2, in the cross-examination of RW2 Radhey Shyam, a question was put by learned Counsel for the petitioner about the rate of rent and in reply to that question RW2 Radhey Shyam stated that it was Rs.165/- per month when the shop was purchased by the petitioner and for the last six-seven years the rate of rent is Rs.265/-. But regarding the demised shop, the petitioner has failed to prove to as to what is exact rate of rent and that the respondent is in arrears of rent from 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2017 and that he has not paid the same despite demand and opportunity to pay as the alleged arrear is only for one month from 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2017 and the present petition was filed on 31.07.2017 itself. In absence of sufficient evidence qua the fact that the respondent has not paid the rent despite effective opportunity, therefore, the respondent cannot be evicted on this ground.

12. As regards the second ground of personal necessity is concerned, a perusal of cross- examination of the petitioner Nand Kishore (PW2) shows that he has admitted in his cross- examination that it is correct that he alongwith his son Amit are working together in the another shop for the last 10 years. Amit Kumar son of Nand Kishore (PW3) has also admitted in his cross- examination that he has done B