[147] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.11.2025 Rahul and another …Petitioners versus Rambabu and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the Caveator/respondent No.1.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Tenant is in revision aggrieved of the orders passed by the authorities below, ordering eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

[2] Parties hereinafter are referred to by their contractual status i.e.

petitioner as tenant, respondent as landlord.

[3] Landlord approached the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant from demised premises on the ground that he has proved to be a bad tenant as he failed to pay rent regularly and is in arrears of rent. The other ground on which the eviction was sought was that the landlord needs premises to settle his son. The landlord has three sons. All of them are married and have families. Two sons of the landlord are well settled. The third son Sanjay Kumar is unemployed. He has no suitable/sufficient accommodation available with him to carry business. The landlord requires RAJNEESH SHARMAthe demised shop for establishing business for his third son, Sanjay Kumar, who wants to start a cloth business.

[4] The tenant contested the eviction petition, denying that the rent is not being paid regularly. Rather, it was claimed that it is the landlord who stopped accepting the rent for last 03 years. It was denied that the son of the landlord, Sanjay Kumar, is unemployed and or has no other suitable or sufficient accommodation to start business. Rather it was pleaded that the landlord is a man of resources. He belongs to a rich and wealthy family, having numerous commercial establishments, shops, showrooms etc. where his son can carry business.

[5] Eviction petition was put to trial by the Rent Controller, framing following issues:-

“1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non payment of arrear of rent? OPP

2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground that the demised premises is required by the petitioner for personal and banafide necessity? OPP

3. Whether petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable in its present form? OPR

4. Whether petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

5. Relief. ”

[6] Provisional rent was paid during the pendency of the eviction petition as ordered by the Rent Controller. Accordingly, the ground of non- payment of rent ceased to exist in terms of the proviso appended to provision.

RAJNEESH SHARMA [7] The tenant was ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, holding that the unemployment of the son of the landlord stands proved. Thus, his need being bona fide, the landlord is entitled to get vacant physical possession of the demised premises.

[8] Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller, tenant preferred appeal. Before the Appellate Court, tenant filed application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to lead additional evidence to the effect that the son of the landlord qua whom the landlord claims bona fide need has started a business by the name of Sanjay Garments from Shop No.6, near ASD High School, Narnaul. It was further claimed that a business run under the name of R.R. Sweets and Restaurant and R.R. Sweets and Bakery is also being run by Sanjay Aggarwal from a huge building, constructed over area of more than 1000 sq. yards. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC maintaining the order of the Rent Controller observing as under:-

“20. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the said applications are beyond the scope of order 41 rule 27 CPC. Even if the contention of the tenant is accepted that the son of the la