IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (113)

Date of Decision:-21.01.2026 BACHITTAR SINGH ALIAS BACHITAR SINGH SADANA AND ANOTHER … Petitioners Versus ROSHANI DEVI ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nischal Manchanda, Advocate;

Mr. Vipul Thakur, Advocate;

Mr. Jatin Sardana, Advocate and Ms. Devyanshi, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present petition invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the concurrent findings rendered by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 02.08.2024 and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 08.08.2025, whereby the petitioners-tenants have been directed to vacate the tenanted shop premises bearing Municipal ID No. HSMCW0500412 (Old No.404), Ward No.8, near Durga Mandir, Shahabad, solely on the ground of the respondent-landlady’s alleged bona fide requirement.

2. The eviction proceedings were instituted by the respondent- landlady seeking the ejectment of the petitioners from the aforesaid shop premises, alleging as under:-

(i) non-payment of rent with effect from 01.01.2017; and (ii) her purported bona fide requirement of the premises for establishing a cosmetics, artificial jewellery, and gift business for her son, Sourabh Saini.

2.1. It was averred that the petitioners are tenants in occupation of ₹

the demised premises at a monthly rent of 2,200/-, as shown in red in the site plan appended with the eviction petition.

3. Upon service of notice, the petitioner/respondent entered appearance and filed their written statement, raising preliminary objections, inter alia, regarding suppression of material facts, maintainability of the petition, lack of locus standi, estoppel, and the vexatious and frivolous nature of the proceedings.

3.1. The learned Rent Controller, however, vide order dated 02.08.2024, allowed the eviction petition and directed the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority under the Rent Act. The said appeal stood dismissed vide judgment dated

08.08.2025, thereby upholding the order of ejectment.

3.2. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent-landlady’s claim of arrears of rent is patently misconceived, inasmuch as the petitioners have been continuously tendering and paying rent since 1989 and are not in arrears of any amount. Significantly, the respondent herself did not press the ground of non-payment of rent during the course of arguments before the learned Courts below. The eviction, therefore, rests entirely on the alleged personal necessity, which the petitioners submit is neither bona fide nor substantiated by cogent evidence.

3.3. In these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 02.08.2024 and 08.08.2025 suffer from manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, and misappreciation of material on record, rendering them liable to be quashed.

Hence, the present petition is being instituted.

4. Commencing his submissions with considerable emphasis, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Authorities below have failed to appreciate the fundamental infirmity underlying the respondent–landlady’s claim of bona fide requirement. It is urged that the respondent has deliberately suppressed material particulars relating to the substantial commercial accommodation already available to her and her family members. Counsel draws attention to the evidence on record demonstrating that Saurabh Saini, son of the respondent–landlady, is actively engaged in assisting his father in an already operational showroom, from which the family conducts multiple commercial ventures, including the business of cloth merchandising, general store operations, artificial jewellery, and cosmetics etc..

4.1. He further submits that the respondent’s family is in possession of multiple commercial establi