IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 08.01.2025 M/s Narula Motor Stores & ors. ...... Petitioners vs Bhupinder Singh & anr. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Sangwan, Advocate for the respondents.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Tenant is in revision aggrieved of the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar dated 25.02.2016. The appeal preferred by respondent No.1-landlord-Bhupinder Singh has been allowed. Findings recorded by Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar in its judgment dated 08.08.2013, whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord was ordered to be dismissed stand reversed. Petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from demised premises.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties hereinafter are referred to by their status in the relationship i.e. the petitioners as the tenants and respondent No.1 as the landlord.

3. Landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of (Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1973 Act’). Ejectment of the tenants was sought from the demised premises on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and bonafide need of the landlord. Landlord claimed that he is in transport business. Presently, he is running his business from Chobara. The same is not suitable for his business and thus, he needs demised premises for his own need.

4. Tenant disputed landlord-tenant relationship. Bonafide need as projected by the landlord was also controverted, pleading that the landlord is in occupation of other commercial buildings within the same urban area. It was also pleaded that the landlord has deliberately concealed of him being in possession of other commercial building within the same urban area and thus, the eviction petition needs to be dismissed.

5. Provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller. Tenant made legal tender thereof. The ground of eviction qua non-

payment of arrears of rent ceased to exist.

6. The parties led their respective evidence. Rent Controller after analysing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the landlord was guilty of concealment. He failed to disclose fact of him being in occupation of other shop within municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar. Rather, a specific plea was raised in the eviction petition that the landlord neither owned nor is in possession of any other shop in the concerned urban area. The eviction petition filed by the landlord was thus, ordered to be dismissed. Rent Controller further found that during pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved by the tenant on 31.05.2012 seeking amendment of written statement. Tenant proposed to incorporate the fact regarding landlord being in occupation of shop at Jagadhri road in his written statement. Landlord filed reply thereto admitting the fact of being owner of one shop previously in possession of tenant Multani Fruits and admitted that the shop came under his title on 10.10.2007, when release deed was executed by his mother in his favour. Once the landlord admitted that he owns other shop and got the same vacated from Multani Fruits, he is proved to be in occupation of the other shop. Despite being in knowledge of the said fact, the landlord is guilty of having concealed the said fact and is thus, not entitled to claim bonafide need.

7. In appeal preferred by the landlord, the findings recorded by the Rent Controller regarding concealment stand reversed. Appellate Authority re-appreciated the evidence to conclude that non- disclosure by landlord being in possession of other shop is not fatal to his case. Appellate Authority held that evidence has come on record that the shop in question was not appropriate for the landlord to run his business and was thus, not suitable. Reversing th