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

Decided on:-29.10.2025

1. CR-6938-2025 (O&M)

Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner VERSUS Shri Ranvir Uppal and Others ....Respondents

2. CR-6950-2025 (O&M)

Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner VERSUS Shri Ranvir Uppal and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. H.L.Tiku, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Yashmeet and Mr. Manav Bajaj, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. This common judgment of mine shall dispose of above-numbered two civil revisions. One i.e CR.6938 of 2025 filed by the petitioner-tenant for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, U.T.Chandigarh, in the rent petition filed by the respondents–landlords, whereby the application of the petitioner–tenant under Order XII Rule 2A CPC for admission and denial of documents has been dismissed and Second i.e. CR.6950 of

2025, by the petitioner–tenant for setting aside the impugned common order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh, in the rent petition filed by the respondents–landlords, whereby the application of the petitioner–tenant under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and the application under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for placing on record certified copy of the document in support of the amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are that the petitioner–company is a tenant in respect of the basement and second floor of premises No.SCO 1, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. In the year 2013, respondent No.1, along with his brother–respondent No.2, his son–respondent No.3, and his nephew–respondent No.4 (son of respondent No.2), filed an eviction petition against the petitioner–tenant seeking eviction from the said premises comprising the basement and second floor.

3. The ground taken by the respondents in the eviction petition was that they are members of a business family, and with the passage of time, the sons of respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely respondent Nos.3 and 4, had grown up, got married, and were having their own families. It was pleaded that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had decided to expand their business and to entrust the same to respondent Nos.3 and 4, for which the basement was required for storage purposes and the second floor for office use.

4. It is the case of the petitioner–tenant that the respondents did not disclose that the ground floor and first floor of the same building were also owned by them. As on the date of filing of the eviction petition, the ground floor was already let out, and a portion of the first floor was in the possession of the respondents. The said portions were available to them for commencing business, yet they did not disclose the same. The respondents also did not plead that the ground floor and first floor constituted a source of substantial rental income for them.

5. The petitioner–tenant in its written statement specifically pleaded that the respondents were in possession of the ground floor and first floor even immediately before the filing of the eviction petition and also during its pendency, but no business was started therein, which reflected that the alleged requirement of the tenanted premises was not bona fide.

6. Subsequently, during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner came to know of the respondents having come into possession of the ground floor and accordingly moved an application for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed, and issues were framed on 26.09.2013. The respondents led their evidence, which was closed on 03.02.2016, while the petitioner led its evidence, and by 01.09.2017, nine witnesses had been examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, on 16.04.2018, the respondents filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for