IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 19.05.2025 Pronounced on: 01.07.2025 MANOHAR LAL AGGARWAL . . . .PETITIONERS Vs.

MRS. ANITA SOOD AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divyanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners - Landlords.

Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents - Tenants.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed by the landlords, assailing the orders dated 9.8.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, and dated 28.4.2009 by the learned Appellate Authority, whereby the petition for the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises was dismissed on the ground that the need projected was not for the landlord personally but for a private limited company, which is a separate juristic entity. Thus, the landlords have assailed the concurrent orders of the Courts below.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as ‘landlords’ and ‘tenant’ i.e. their status before Ld. Rent Controller.

Undisputed Facts:

3. Manohar Lal Aggarwal (petitioner herein) and Manmohan Aggarwal (proforma respondent herein) are the landlords-co-owners of SCF No.9, Sector 9D, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises). Smt. Anita Sood and others (respondents herein) are the legal representatives of Abhay Sood, who was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises way back in January, 1970.

4.1 It is not in dispute that the landlords are carrying on the business in the name & style of M/s Building and General Trading Company, having its registered office at Moshi, Tanzania. The said company was incorporated under Companies Act vide certificate of incorporation dated 29^th August, 1979. The landlords are the Directors of the company, which is engaged in the business of import and export, manufacturing and dealing in hardware building material.

4.2 It is also undisputed that respondent Abhay Sood (now represented by his LRs) was inducted as a tenant in the entire SCF i.e., demised premises at a monthly rent of ₹225/- way back in 1970. The premises are being used by the respondents to carry on the business in the name and style of Roshan Studio.

Landlord’s case:

5.1 Petition was filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of the tenant from the said demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord and some other grounds.

5.2 It was pleaded that the Board of Directors of M/s Building and General Trading Company had resolved to expand operations by establishing a liaison office-cum-showroom in Northern India, specifically at Chandigarh, to enhance the import-export trade between Tanzania and India. While the company is already engaged with Indian exporters and importers, the proposed expansion aims to significantly scale up these activities and tap into new opportunities in the northern region. It was further submitted that neither the landlords nor the company’s Directors possess any other commercial premises within the urban area of Chandigarh, making the demised premises essential for the intended business development.

5.3 Though, apart from the bona fide requirement, ejectment was also sought on the ground that the tenant had made substantial material & permanent alternations/ additions without the consent of the landlords, but the said ground was not pressed before this Court and as such, the only surviving ground is the bona fide requirement.

Tenant’s defence:

6. The tenant resisted the petition on the ground that the necessity projected by the landlords is not their personal necessity and rather, it is for a company. The demised premises is not owned by the company i.e., M/s Building and General Trading Company and therefore, petition, as