282 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1601-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 Ashwani Bansal and another ......Petitioners Vs.

Honey Sudhir and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, Mr. Mindal Rawal, Advocate, and Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. S.S.Bahl, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate and Ms. Raageshwari Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present civil revision petition is to order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby issues were re-framed and on the same date i.e. 29.10.2024, petition filed by the respondents under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the petitioners was decided. And to order dated 13.01.2026 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against order dated 29.10.2024 was dismissed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that learned Rent Controller had re-framed the issues on 29.10.2024 and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence, on the same date decided the eviction petition filed by the respondents. He further contends that appeal filed by the petitioners against order dated 29.10.2024 before the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, was also dismissed, vide its order dated 13.01.2026, despite the fact that in Para 8 of grounds of appeal, it has been specifically stated that learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, on its own had re-framed the issues, when in fact no notice of such re-framing was ever given to the petitioners nor were they asked to lead any evidence to prove their case on the issues re-framed by learned Rent Controller. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed and the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar and order dated 13.01.2026 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contends that the issues which were re-framed were framed in other petitions filed by the respondents regarding other shops against the same tenants and the petitioners have already led evidence. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners if the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, has decided the eviction petition on the same day and it is undertaking given by the petitioners before learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, that they do not want to lead any evidence. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned Senior counsels for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance.

5. A perusal of file shows that petitioners had moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for re- framing of issues, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2024. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.10.2024, learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar on its own re-framed the issues. The order dated 29.10.2024 is reproduced as under:-

“Perusal of record shows that due to some inadvertence proper issues have not been framed in the present case. Accordingly issues are reframed as under:-

1) Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent from 01.08.2011 at the monthly rent of Rs.800/- along with payment of house tax? OPP

2) Whether the demised shop is required by the petitioners for personal use and occupation? OPP

3) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPP

4) Whether the respondents are source of nuisance? OPP

5) Whether the petition is not maintainable?

OPR

6) Whether the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and concealed material facts from this Court? OPR

7) Relief.

The counsel for the parties have stated at bar that the evidence already led may be read in support of the aforesaid issues and there is no requir