IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5291-2023 (O&M)

Reserved on:- 13.10.2025 Pronounced on:-27.10.2025 Dinesh Kumar @ Naresh Kumar @ kaka and Others ....Petitioners VERSUS Amit Pal ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Shiv Charanjit, Advocate and Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Nimish Gautam, Advocate for the respondent.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners– tenants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, vide judgment dated 03.10.2019, allowed the ejectment petition filed by the respondent–landlord, and the appeal preferred by the present petitioners was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 20.07.2023.

Brief Facts

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent–landlord, Amit Pal, filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the petitioners–tenants from a shop measuring 10 feet × 18 feet, marked as ABCD in the site plan, situated on G.T. Road, Gurdaspur. The ejectment was sought against respondents No. 1 Dinesh Kumar, No. 2 Ramesh Kumar and No. 3 Vipan Kumar. It was averred that the respondent–landlord had purchased the said shop bearing Private No.11 from Akash Mahajan vide registered sale deed dated 10.08.2018, and by virtue of the said purchase, the respondent became landlord of the demised premises. It was further stated that the petitioners were liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the following grounds: firstly, that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his personal use and occupation, as he is a qualified advocate practising at the Civil Courts, Gurdaspur, having Chamber No.70 in the Lawyers’ Chambers, and intends to open his professional office in the demised shop which is suitably located on the main road; secondly, that respondent No.1 has sublet the demised premises to respondents No. 2 and 3 without written consent of the landlord; thirdly, that the tenants have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises; fourthly, that respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause; and fifthly, that the premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, being in a dilapidated condition. It was accordingly prayed that the respondents be ordered to vacate the demised premises marked ABCD in the site plan appended with the petition.

3. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed a written statement raising preliminary objections that the petition was barred by res judicata, not maintainable, and that the petitioner had concealed material facts and not disclosed the previous litigation. On merits, it was denied that the petitioner had become owner of the demised shop or that any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It was alleged that one Akash Mahajan, from whom the respondent purchased the shop, is an advocate practising in the same courts and had earlier acted as counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 in an ejectment petition filed by one Dr. Ravinder Kumar against them. It was further stated that after the death of Dr. Ravinder Kumar, his legal heirs sold the shop to Mrs. Rupali Mahajan, wife of Akash Mahajan, who got herself impleaded as party in appeal proceedings arising out of that case. Later, Akash Mahajan purchased the property and filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.1 before the learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, which was subsequently withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Thereafter, he executed a sale deed in favour of the present respondent–landlord, Amit Pal.

4. The tenants, therefore, alleged that the s