IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-896-2025 Date of decision: 05.03.2025 Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Savita Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CM-4195-CII-2025

1. This is an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated

13.02.2025.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 13.02.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken up on Board today itself for final disposal.

Main case

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 06.02.2024 vide which the Rent Controller had allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1973 Act”) and had further directed the petitioner to pay use and occupation charges of the disputed premises @ Rs.2000/- per month from the date of order till the premises are actually vacated. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 08.01.2025 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, inasmuch as, the petitioner had taken the premises on rent from Kaushalya Devi vide rent note dated 05.07.2002 and after the death of Kaushalya Devi, her son, Sanjay Kumar had become the landlord and he had been paying the rent to the said Kaushalya Devi and Sanjay Kumar. It is submitted that however the eviction petition had been filed by Savita Devi, who is the Aunt of Sanjay Kumar and she had no locus standi to file the eviction petition. It is submitted that the said Savita Devi was sought to be projected as landlady only to enable her to file the petition for eviction against the present petitioner and same is not bona fide and thus, deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority deserve to be set aside.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that impugned judgments passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and the revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1973 Act with respect to the shop in question on the plea that she was owner of the shop in question and earlier Kaushalya Devi, widow of Ganpat Ram, was owner of the demised premises and the said Kaushalya Devi had let out the premises to the present petitioner on the initial rent of Rs.1500/- per month vide rent note dated 05.07.2002 and that tenancy was for a period of three months. It was the case of the respondent- landlady that the said Kaushalya Devi had executed a Will in favour of her son Sanjay Kumar and after the death of Kaushalya Devi on 08.03.2014, it was the son of said Kaushalya Devi who had become owner and landlord of the premises and thereafter the said Sanjay Kumar had executed a gift deed bearing No.5687 dated 07.11.2017 in favour of the respondent and thus, by operation of law, the respondent had become owner as well as the landlady of the premises in question. It was stated that after the expiry of the tenancy period, the present petitioner became a statutory tenant and eviction of the petitioner was sought on two grounds. First ground of eviction was bona fide requirement under which it was pleaded that the demised premises was required for personal necessity of the landlady as one of the son of the respondent-landlady namely Vikas was unemployed and he was an ITI Diploma Holder and he