IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.03.2025 Manjit Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus Darshan Singh ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-18661-CII-2024

1. The present application has been filed for restoration of the main petition (CR-818-2024) which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 27.09.2024.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The main petition (CR-818-2024) is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself.

CR-818-2024

3. The present revision petition has been filed by the landlord- petitioner challenging the order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Rent Controller and the order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority. 4. Brief facts relevant to the present case are that the landlord- petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the tenant-respondent from a shop being part of property No.1319/3 situated at Haibowal Khurd, Main Road, Manjit Market, Rajpura Road, Ludhiana on the grounds of arrears of rent; personal bonafide necessity; impairing the value and utility of the property; nuisance to the neighbours; change of user of the property. The Rent Controller vide order dated 17.04.2018 dismissed the ejectment petition. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the landlord-petitioner which appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated

16.09.2023. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner would contend that the entire property is to be used as a shopping complex by merging it into a single property and hence both the Authorities have erred in dismissing the ejectment petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner.

7. In the present case, issue Nos.1 to 3 were taken up together by the Rent Controller regarding the arrears of rent and bonafide personal necessity. Since the entire arrears of rent were paid, hence the ground of arrears of rent was not pressed. The second ground for ejectment was that the shop was required for bonafide personal necessity of the landlord-petitioner herein. The Rent Controller noticed that “I have carefully gone through cross- examination of PW3 petitioner wherein he had admitted the execution of affidavit dated 03.02.14 Ex.R1. He admitted that there are total 7 shops in property No.1319/3 which are in possession of different tenants. Tenant Ashok Kumar is also in the arrears of rent but he has not filed any ejectment petition against him. He rented out a big hall to Allahabad Bank about four years back. The total area of property is about 500 sq yds. The shop in question is measuring 8'X12'. Allahabad bank was inducted as tenant after demolishing the property and by paying fine to MC Office, Ludhiana. He has let out 1500 sq feet to Allahabad Bank on rent. There are nine shops in the total property besides the portion in possession of Allahabad Bank. He is in possession of two shops which are lying vacant. He has not file ejectment petition against other tenants. He is also owner of plot measuring 100 sq. yds. in Dairy Complex Mall.”

8. The Rent Controller held that since it was proved on the record that the landlord-petitioner had let out 1500 sq. ft. of area to Allahabad Bank after two years of filing of the present ejectment petition, hence, the bonafide need of the landlord-petitioner stood falsified.

9. On issue Nos.4 to 6 i.e. impairment of value and utility, nuisance for neighbours and change of usage, it is found that no evidence had been led in this regard and that all the witnesses who had appeared had only testified on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as bonafide necessity. No expert was produced to establish the loss or damage caused to the shop. Even the ground of nuisance was not proved nor the change of usage. The