IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 10, 2026 CHARAN JEET LAL AHUJA ........Petitioner Versus RAM KISHAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS. ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for respondent.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to eviction orders dated 15.04.2017 and 27.11.2019 passed by the Authorities below whereby the petitioner-tenant has been directed to vacate the shop in question.

2. Briefly stating, respondent while claiming himself to be owner- cum-landlord of the demised shops bearing Nos.4 and 7 situated at Modi Market Bara Hazari near Durga Mandir Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant therefrom on the following grounds:-

“A) Non payment of the rent since October 2010.

B) Closure of the shop since last one year, due to which utility and value of the shops have been degraded.

C) Dilapidated conditions and unfit and unsafe for inhabitants.

D) Personal bonafide necessity of petitioner for their own business and for his sons.”

3. It was pleaded that petitioner-tenant was doing his business in the demised premises along with his sons and was paying rent @

Rs.2000/- per month for shop No.4 and Rs.3200/- per month for shop No.7.

4. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared before the learned Rent Controller and raised a plea that he was tenant in shop No.4 since 1992 at a rent of Rs.550/- per month whereas tenancy in shop No.7 commenced in the year 2001 for godown purposes and the rent was Rs.1200/- per month. It was pleaded that petitioner-tenant was carrying on the business of bicycle, rickshaw repair etc. in the premises in question. The petitioner-tenant further submitted that since October 2010 despite repeated requests, the respondent-landlord was not receiving the rent. It was also pleaded that the respondent-landlord along with his sons and the other family members having shifted to Delhi about 6 years back were carrying their business there and were even permanently residing there and as such the demised premises were not required for the bona fide necessity of the two sons of respondent- landlord. It was also denied that the tenanted premises were in a dilapidated condition or unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was thus pleaded that the eviction petition preferred at the instance of respondent-

landlord was liable to be dismissed.

5. Upon trial, the learned Rent Controller vide decision dated 15.04.2017 ordered eviction against petitioner herein while recording that the 2 shops were required for the personal necessity of the two sons of respondent-landlord. However, on the issue of demised premises being unfit and unsafe as well the petitioner-tenant having ceased to occupy the same, findings went against the respondent-landlord. With respect to arrears, it was recorded that the rate of rent for shop No.4 and 7 was proved to be Rs.550 and Rs.1200 respectively. The same having been tendered by the petitioner-tenant, the said ground did not survive.

6. Aggrieved of the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority. The appeal preferred at the instance of petitioner-tenant was dismissed vide decision dated 27.11.2019.

7. Impugning the orders dated 15.04.2017 and 27.11.2019 passed by the Authorities below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the eviction petition was preferred at the instance of respondent-landlord with the specific pleadings that the two shops were required for the personal necessity of his two sons, in the absence of either of the two sons having appeared before the learned Rent Controller in order to establish their bona fide need qua the demised premises no eviction order could have been passed against the petitioner. He submits that in the absence of either of the two sons of the respondent having appeared before the learned R