IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

243 CR-9057-2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 24.02.2026 Jagmohan ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

M/s Laxmi Narayan Naresh Kumar ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate Mr. Arjun Sangwan, Advocate Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate Ms. Rashima Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment of reversal passed by the ld. Appellate Authority whereby Rent Appeal filed by the respondent/landlord against dismissal of his Rent Petition by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar has been accepted by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 03.11.2017.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Number III of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), before the Id. Rent Controller Amritsar seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop on the grounds of non payment of rent and bonafide need of the shop in question. It was averred that Shri Laxmi Narain partner of the respondent-firm, has two sons namely Janak Raj and Naresh Kumar. Naresh Kumar also has two sons namely Amit and Ashish, who have graduated and completed their studies and who are not doing any work/business at present and hence they want to start their own business in the demised shop; and as such, their need is urgent and bonafide requirement of the demised premises for their use and occupation.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner had appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the respondent had failed to disclose in the Rent Application that besides the demised premises he has four other shops which are lying vacant. It was alleged that the respondent had concealed the said fact in his Rent Petition deliberately. Accordingly, dismissal of the Rent Petition was prayed for.

4. In replication, the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the Rent Application are reiterated.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: -

“1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent with effect from January, 2007 onwards till date? OPA

2. Whether the respondent has not paid the house tax for the period w.e.f. 1.8.1999 onwards? OPA

3. Whether the demised shop is required by the applicant bonafidely? OPA

4. Whether present application is not maintainable? OPR

5. Relief.”

6. Vide order dated 04.08.2016, the ld. Rent Controller, Amritsar had dismissed the Rent Application of the respondent holding that: -

“27. In the present case applicant has not pleaded with regard to his entire properties owned and possessed by his firm. It has duly come on record that applicant has been owner of many other properties regarding which there is no averment in the rent petition. Such being position, prejudice has been caused to respondent to rebut the case of the petitioner and for the same, petitioner cannot take any advantage. Accordingly, in these circumstances it cannot be said that need of the applicant is bonafide. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the applicant.

XXX

29. In view of my findings on aforesaid issues, especially my findings on issue number 2, the present petition stands allowed with costs on the ground of nonpayment of house tax by respondent. However, the respondent is given two months time to the pay house tax. If the respondent pays this amount, within two months from today, then there will be no eviction order on ground of non-payment of house tax, failing which the applicant has right to get this order executed by following due procedure of law. Memo of costs be prepared and file complete in all respect be consigned to the Record Room.”

7. However, the Rent Appeal filed by the respondent was accepted by the learned Appellate Authority vi