IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Bikram Singh .... Petitioner Versus Mohinder Pal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jagdish Mahal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Simran Singh, Advocate, along with the respondent in person.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is tenant’s revision petition against the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, Pathankot, dismissing the appeal filed against the eviction order dated

20.09.2022 passed by the Rent Controller, Pathankot.

2. The respondent-landlord (Mohinder Pal), instituted a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant (Bikram Singh) from a shop marked as `ABCDE’ in the site plan (fully described in the eviction petition), situated in Malkiat Complex, Bhadroya Road, Pathankot (hereinafter referred to as `the demised premises’). The case set up was that the respondent-landlord was owner-landlord of the demised premises, being co-owner of the entire Malkiat Complex. It was averred that all the shops situated in the said complex had been mutually partitioned by the co-owners in a family partition arrived at on 09.02.2017. In the said petition, the demised premises had fallen to the exclusive share of the respondent- landlord. As per the respondent-landlord, due intimation in this regard had been given to the petitioner-tenant.

3. It was averred that the demised-premises had been taken on rent by the petitioner-tenant @ Rs.5500/- per month on 18.08.2003 with 10% increase in the existing rent after a period of every three years. The tenancy commenced on 01.09.2004. The petitioner-tenant was stated to be in arrears of rent from 01.02.2017 to 30.11.2017 as a result of which, the eviction petition was filed.

4. In the written statement, preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi and concealment of material facts, were raised. On merits, it was admitted by the petitioner-tenant that he was a tenant in the demised premises, having taken the same on rent from Smt. Surinder Kaur vide rent note dated 18.08.2004. He, however, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent-landlord. The partition dated 09.02.2017 was stated to be illegal, null and void. Averments as regards non- payment of rent were denied. It was averred that if any order of assessment of rent was passed, he was ready to pay the rent.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

“1. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises? OPA 3. Whether this ejectment application is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether applicant has concealed the material facts from the Court? OPR

5. Relief.”

6. Parties led their respective evidence.

7. Vide order dated 20.09.2022, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been proved. It was further held that since the relationship had been denied by the petitioner-tenant, there was no requirement of assessing the provisional rent and once the said relationship had been proved and it had been found that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent, no further opportunity deserved to be granted for payment of the rent. The appeal preferred against the said order of eviction, was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both Courts have gravely erred in allowing the eviction petition. The sole argument raised is that the petitioner-tenant is willing to pay the rent and that under the circumstances, the Courts should have accepted the contention. Learned counsel, while referring to