121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 24.02.2025 Sandeep Singla ....Petitioner Versus Prithvi Pal Singh and Another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.

Present: Mr. Karan Monga, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for the respondents- caveators.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Patiala vide which the eviction petition filed by the respondents-landlords was allowed.

2. The respondents-landlords preferred a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Rent Act’) for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from shop No.1 situated at Soodan Street, Gaushala Road, near Sher-e-Punjab Market, Patiala (for short ‘the demised premises’) on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide necessity. It was averred that the demised premises had been taken on rent by the petitioner-tenant from Krishan Kumar, father of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 (sister of respondent No.1). After the death of Krishan Kumar, the respondents-landlords had stepped into the shoes of their father and the petitioner-tenant had become a tenant under them. He started paying rent to respondent No.1 which was initially Rs.3,200/- per month and after increase from time to time, the same was Rs.5,000/- per month. The rent had not been paid from 01.04.2018 and further the demised premises was required for the personal use and occupation of respondent No.1, as he wanted to settle his wife Kavita Bala in the demised premises so that she could run the business of a beauty parlour. It was averred that she possessed the experience of Beauty and Culture and had also completed a Course in this regard.

3. The eviction petition was opposed by the petitioner-tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied so was the rate of rent. A stand was taken that the petitioner-tenant had in fact taken the demised premises on rent from one Anil Kumar and on his asking, Rs.475/- per month as rent was paid to Krishan Kumar, father of the respondents. After the death of Krishan Kumar, on the asking of Anil Kumar, he had started paying rent of Rs.800/- per month to the respondents but no receipt was ever issued by them. All other averments were denied. It was denied that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent or that respondent No.1 required the demise premises for his own use and occupation. It was also averred that the respondents were in possession of more shops on the first floor of the demised premises and one shop on the ground floor as well. It was averred that the respondents in fact had six shops in all out of which four were on the first floor and two were on the ground floor.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for eviction of respondent from the shops in question on the ground of personal necessity, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the present petition is maintainable in its present form? OPP

3. Whether the rate of rent is Rs.800/- per month for both the shops as prayed by the respondent? OPR

4. Relief.”

5. Parties led their respective evidence.

6. The eviction petition filed by the respondents was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2024 by learned Rent Controller, Patiala and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2024 by learned Appellate Authority, Patiala leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the decisions of the Appellate Authority and the Court of learned Rent Controller only on the ground of bona fide necessity and has not assailed the findings as regards the relationship