IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 28-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement: 18-09-2025 SATISH KUMAR AND ORS. ........Petitioners VERSUS RAMA SHANKAR ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Prem Chand Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Kuldevi Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

***

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners-tenants have filed the present civil revision petition impugning the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority, Rewari vide order dated 13.03.2015 whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord was allowed and the order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside.

2. As per the brief facts, the respondent Rama Shankar (hereinafter referred as landlord) filed an ejectment petition seeking ejectment of the petitioners Satish Kumar, Saroj Bala and Banwari Lal on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, personal necessity and subletting. It is pleaded that Satish Kumar, petitioner No.1 is a tenant in the shop in question on the basis of Rent Note dated 14.03.1980, executed between the petitioner No.1 Satish Kumar and Matadeen i.e. father of the respondent. Initially, the rate of rent was Rs.225/- per month plus House Tax. However, the fair rent of the demised shop in question was fixed as Rs.5324/- per annum in a petition filed for fixation of the rent. It is further pleaded that the respondent No.1/appellant-Satish Kumar had sublet the premises and handed over the shop in question to petitioner/respondents No.2 and 3 without the consent of the landlord.

2.1 Upon notice, respondents No.1 to 3-appellants contested the petition of the Rent Controller and framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in para No.4(a) to (c) i.e. for non-payment of rent personal necessity and sub letting as alleged? OPA (2) Whether the petitioner has filed the petition with a malafide intention so not maintainable? OPR (3) Whether the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of partial eviction as alleged? OPR (4) Whether the respondent has made a valid receipt of arrears of rent, house tax and electricity charges etc. as alleged? OPR (5) Relief.”

2.2 Both the parties led their respective evidence.

2.3 The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord filed the appeal and by passing the impugned order, the appellate authority reversed the findings on issue of personal necessity and subletting while deciding the same in favour of the respondent-landlord. While setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller, ejectment order was passed in favour of the respondent-landlord while deciding the same in favour of the respondent-landlord.

3. While deciding the issue regarding personal necessity in favour of the landlord, the appellate authority observed that on the basis of the site plan Ex.AW2/A, it cannot be assumed that the landlord has other sufficient accommodation for starting the business of General Merchant. It was observed that the shop in question is part of the property bearing No.3029/2A, which was earlier owned by Matadeen and respondent No.1/appellant No.1 Satish Kumar was a tenant under Matadeen. After the death of Matadeen, the property was inherited by the legal heirs on the basis of a decree passed by the Court whereby, three shops were transferred in favour of Parveen Kumar, Yogesh Kumar and Arvind Kumar, who are the sons of the appellant/ Ram Shankar-respondent landlord.

4. While discussing the family settlement inter se Ram Shankar- respondent landlord and his sons, the Appellate Authority observed that the tenant cannot challenge the family settlement and the Civil Court decree, whereby, the properties were transferred in favour of the landlord and his sons.

5. The Appellate Authority concluded that the landlord does not possess any other shop in the city of Rewari. The shop in quest