IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ......Petitioners Vs PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate with Ms. Jyotneer Kaur Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present petition, challenge has been laid to the decision dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Charkhi Dadri whereby an appeal against judgment dated 25.09.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, preferred at the instance of respondent No.1 was allowed thereby resulting into passing of an eviction order against the petitioners qua shop No.13 situated at Rajbir Market, Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri.

[2]. Briefly stating, respondent No.1 while claiming himself to be owner as well as landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to he referred as ‘1973 Act’) against the petitioners qua shop No.13 situated at Rajbir Market, Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as bona fide necessity of his two sons namely Manoj Kumar and Sumit.

[3]. Upon notice, all the petitioners except Rohtas Kumar (proforma respondent No.3 herein) appeared and filed joint written statements while pleading that the demised shop was taken on rent from Shri Kishan son of Lahri Ram in the year 1967 and till 2000 it was Shri Kishan, who used to receive the rent. It was further submitted that in the year 2000 Shri Kishan, who happened to be the brother of respondent No.1/landlord served a notice dated 17.04.2000 upon the petitioners stating therein that in a family partition the demised shop had fallen to the share of respondent No.1 and henceforth the rent be paid to him. It was thus pleaded that since 2000, the petitioners were paying the rent qua the demised shop to respondent No.1/landlord. However, it was further pleaded that any such family settlement was a mala fide attempt to defeat the rights of the petitioners under the prevalent rent laws as the demised shop had fallen to the share of Shri Kishan in a partition among the brothers i.e. sons of Lahri Ram vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.1965.

[3.1]. Further, it was denied that respondent No.1/landlord was the owner of demised premises and the bona fide need of his two sons was also denied. In addition, it was pleaded that since respondent No.1, who was receiving rent was merely a landlord and not the owner of the demised shop, as such he could not have sought eviction of the demised shop on account of bona fide need of his two sons and, thus the eviction petition filed at his instance was liable to be dismissed.

[4]. It may be noticed here that the arrears of rent etc. were tendered at the instance of petitioners before the learned Rent Controller and as such the eviction petition on the said ground was not pressed. However, in respect of bona fide need of sons of respondent No.1/landlord, the eviction petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 29.05.2015.

[5]. Aggrieved thereof, respondent No.1/landlord filed first appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Charkhi Dadri and the same was allowed vide decision dated 19.11.2019 thereby holding the need of two sons of respondent No.1/landlord qua the demised shop being genuine and bona fide thereby resulting into passing of an eviction order against the petitioners. Hence the present revision petition.

[6]. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by virtue of decree dated 01.12.1965 which was proved on record as Ex.RW-2/A the demised shop had fallen to the share of Shri Kishan son of Lahri Ram and thus, he being its owner, no eviction could have been sought at the instance of respondent No.1 qua bona fide need of his two sons, even if he was being paid t