IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 08.07.2025 Munni Devi(since deceased) through her LR ...... Petitioner Versus Jagdish Rai ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***

Present : Ms. Sweta Beniwal, Advocate for Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate for the respondent.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J (ORAL)

This is landlady’s revision petition against the order dated

16.05.2019, passed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak, dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 28.02.2018, passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Rohtak, vide which the eviction petition filed by the petitioner-

landlady was dismissed.

2. The petitioner-landlady (Smt. Munni Devi) instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’) against the respondent-tenant (Jagdish Rai). The case set up was that the petitioner-landlady was the owner of two shops bearing Nos.1094 and 1095, situated in Jain Cloth Market, Rohtak and the respondent-tenant was in possession of shop No.1094 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised premises’) at a monthly rent of Rs.100/- for more than 15 years. Eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent for five years immediately prior to the filing of the eviction petition and the demised premises being required by the petitioner for her own use and occupation as she wanted to settle her grand son Jatin who had completed his education and was unemployed. It was averred that the husband of the petitioner-landlady namely Mahabir Prasad was doing the business of clothes in shop No.1095 which was a small shop and he wanted to expand his business to settle her grand son. For the said purpose, the demised premises was required. It was averred that she had no other commercial premises in the Municipal Area of Rohtak and had also not vacated any such premises without sufficient cause.

3. The eviction petition was opposed by the respondent-tenant. In the written statement, preliminary objections as regards maintainability, cause of action etc. were raised. It was also averred that the petitioner-landlady had concealed material facts and had not disclosed that her husband Mahabir Prasad was occupying numerous other shops, the details of which were given in the preliminary objections. Apart from being the owner of shops, he had also been allotted a plot bearing No.133 measuring 450 square meters by HSIIDC and on the said plot, he had constructed a double storey building wherein embroidery machines had been installed by him and he was carrying on embroidery business by the name of Aggarwal Embroidery. As regards the grand son of the petitioner- landlady namely Jatin, it was averred that he was a student of BBA in Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak and after his classes, he was looking after the business of embroidery. On merits, the relationship of landlady & tenant was admitted. It was averred that the respondent-tenant was in occupation of the demised premises since 1975. The rate of rent of Rs.100/- per month was also admitted. Other averments were denied.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises ? OPP

2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable ? OPR

3. Relief.

5. Parties led their respective evidence.

6. The Court of learned Rent Controller, Rohtak dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlady and the appeal filed against the said decision was also dismissed, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. It was strenuously urged by learned counsel representing the petitioner-landlady that both the Courts erred in dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner. It was submitted that no facts had been concealed. Learned counsel further submitted that it is sett