IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pronounced on : 04.07.2025 Raj Arora (since deceased) through His LRs ...... Petitioner Versus Smt. Santosh Lamba ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***

Argued by : Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate and Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J This is tenant’s revision petition against the order dated 17.04.2025, passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order dated 08.12.2023, passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide which the eviction petition preferred by the respondent-landlady under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’) was allowed.

2(i). The facts, as emanating from the pleadings, are that the respondent- landlady (Smt. Santosh Lamba) instituted a petition (Annexure P-2) under Section 13 of the Rent Act against Raj Arora (Predecessor in interest of the present petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Sh. Raj Arora) for his eviction from the first floor of House No.1162, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised premises).

2(ii). The case set out in the eviction petition was that Sh. Raj Arora was a tenant on the first floor of the demised premises since 01.04.2008. The demised premises had been let out at a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- which was increased to Rs.8400/- w.e.f. 11.06.2009 when the rent agreement was extended for a period of

11 months.

2(iii). Eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground that the respondent- landlady required the demised premises for her daughter namely Preeti Lamba who was a teacher in Sachdeva Public School, Pitampura. She was a divorcee and was living with her parents. She was due to retire on 31.03.2019. The petitioner and her husband, both of whom were old and ailing, wanted to shift to Chandigarh alongwith their daughter where the landlady and her husband would reside on the ground floor and their daughter would reside on the first floor and would also take tuitions for her day to day expenses.

2(iv). It was averred that the husband of the respondent-landlady who was owner to the extent of 50% share in the house had earlier filed an eviction petition against the tenant in occupation of the ground floor, on the ground of personal necessity, pursuant to which the ground floor had been vacated in 2015. However, for, the respondent-landlady suffered a paralytic attack, she alongwith her husband could not shift to Chandigarh.

3(i). The eviction petition was opposed by way of written statement (Annexure P-3). Certain preliminary objections were raised. It was averred that there was no bonafide need and the sole purpose of the institution of the eviction petition was to evict the petitioner and enhancement of rent by letting out the demised premises to some other tenant. It was averred that pursuant to the eviction of the tenant on the ground floor, the respondent-landlady and her husband had not occupied the same as a result of which it stood proved that there was no need of the first floor. It was also averred that the ground floor was sufficient for the needs of the landlady even if she intended to shift. On merits, the relationship of landlord and tenant, execution of the lease deed, rate of rent etc. were admitted. Remaining averments were denied and a case was set up that there was no bonafide need of the respondent-landlady.

3(ii). It was stated that Smt. Preeti Lamba was residing at Delhi and had no intention of shifting to Chandigarh. It was averred that since the demised premises was residential, no tuitions could be taken in the same as it would amount to misuse of residential premises. It was also averred that the respondent- landlady alongwith her husband had been living in a joint family in Delhi with their married son and grand childr