IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 Gaurav …Petitioner V/s Kashmir Kaur …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Damanpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sarju Puri, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The present revision petition assails the judgment/order dated

10.12.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, SBS Nagar (under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949) (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”), vide which the appeal instituted by the respondent/landlord (Kashmir Kaur) against the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the Court of Rent Controller, SBS Nagar dismissing the eviction petition instituted by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the Rent Act, was allowed, thereby allowing the eviction petition.

2. The respondent/landlord (Kashmir Kaur) instituted an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant (Gaurav) from a shop (fully described in the eviction petition) situated in the Abadi of Geeta Bhawan Road, Nawanshahr (now SBS Nagar) (hereinafter referred to as “the demised shop”).

3. It was averred that the petitioner/tenant had been inducted as such in the demised shop as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- in January 2002. Rent note dated 28.01.2002 was executed. The rent was to be paid with an increase of 3% per annum. The duration of the rent note was for a period of a day less than one year. It was alleged that however, the petitioner/tenant continued to occupy the demised shop and, therefore, became a statutory tenant Eviction was sought on the following three grounds:-

i) Arrears of rent with effect from 01.04.2006 onwards along with house tax;

ii) The petitioner/tenant having ceased to occupy the demised shop for a period of more than six months without any reasonable cause and excuse; and iii) The value and utility of the demised shop having been impaired on account of unauthorized changes, additions and alterations and nuisance to the other occupiers of the building

4. The eviction petition was opposed by the petitioner/tenant. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections as regards maintainability, the site plan being wrong as per the existing position at the spot and the eviction petition being mala fide, having been filed with a view to pressurize the petitioner/tenant to either increase the rate of rent or to vacate the demised shop, were raised.

On merits, the relationship of landlord and tenant and execution of the rent note was admitted. It was denied that parties had agreed for a 3% annual increase of rent. The grounds of eviction were denied. As regards the ground of the petitioner/tenant having ceased to occupy the premises, it was averred that the same was open since the inception of tenancy and the petitioner/tenant and his father Bhushan Rai, who were joint in mess, worship, residence and income, were jointly running the shop and it was the only source of income of the joint family. It was averred that the rent note had been executed in favour of the petitioner/tenant alone but the demised shop was being run jointly by father and son and since the beginning, the demised shop had never been closed even for a day. All other averments were also denied.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the rent tendered by the respondent is valid tender?OPR

2. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the demised premises for a period of more than four months?OPP

3. Whether the respondent is guilty of making unauthorized changes, additions and alterations in the demised premises without the consent of the petitioner?OPP

4. Whether the respondent is guilty of committing act of omission and commission and waste that he is a nuisance to the petitioner?OPP

5. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR

6. Relief.”

6. Parties led