IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:08.10.2025 SATISH KUMAR ......Petitioner Vs SMT. RAJINDER KAUR ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhijeet Partap, Advocate and Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the judgments dated 06.12.2016 and 29.05.2023 passed by the Courts below, whereby an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction), Act, 1973 filed at the instance of respondent-landlady qua the demised shops, on the ground of her bona fide necessity stands allowed.

[2]. Briefly stating, claiming herself to be the owner of the two shops situated at Luxmi Garden, Yamuna Nagar being part of Plot No.31, bearing Unit No.B-9/841-A (in short ‘demised premises’), having purchased the same from its previous owner, the respondent-landlady filed eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, her bona fide requirement so as to open a tailoring shop/boutique in the demised premises and the petitioner-tenant creating nuisance in the locality by running a butcher shop in the said premises.

[3]. Upon notice, petitioner-tenant appeared and contested the same while submitting that eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent-landlady was an act of mala fide on her part, due to her having purchased the property in question under tenancy. It was further pleaded that the petitioner-tenant always used to pay the rent in time however, it was only when the landlady refused to issue receipt, the rent was being deposited in the court under protest. The bona fide requirement of respondent-landlady was also not proved on record as no experience of her being an expert in cutting and tailoring was disclosed in the eviction petition and her husband was already having a shop under Municipal Corporation. It was further submitted that the shops in question were the only source of income for the petitioner-tenant and his family as he was not having other source of livelihood and therefore, the eviction petition at the instance of respondent-landlady was prayed to be dismissed.

[4]. The learned Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide its judgment dated 06.12.2016 allowed the eviction petition filed at the instance of the respondent-landlady thereby, passing an eviction order against the petitioner-tenant while holding her need to be bona fide. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide its decision dated 29.05.2023.

[5]. Impugning the aforesaid two decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that the eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent-landlady qua the shops in question was not maintainable as there was one big room forming part of the premises in question which was available and lying vacant but was rented out by the respondent-landlady to some third party @ Rs.1500/- per month. Learned counsel contended that in case the respondent- landlady intended to start her work, the same would have been easily setup in the said room.

[5.1]. Learned counsel thus, submitted that the ejectment petition preferred at the instance of the respondent-landlady was not bona fide but was filed merely for the purposes of throwing the petitioner-tenant out of the demised premises and consequently, prayed for allowing the revision petition.

[6]. On the other hand, while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady submitted that the ejectment was prayed for the purposes of setting up of tailoring business by the landlady. Learned counsel pointed out that the two shops in question which were situated towards the front of the building were the most suitable