IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. CR-4526-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on :-03.09.2025 Kanta Rani and Others … Petitioners Versus Gagandeep ... Respondent

2. CR-5261-2025 (O&M)

Chander Parkash (Since Deceased) through his LRs and Others … Petitioners Versus Gagandeep ... Respondent Date of Pronouncement:-11.09.2025 ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner (in both cases)

Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate and Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the caveator/respondent (in both cases)

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. This consolidated order is being pronounced for the purpose of disposing of the captioned revision petitions, which revolve around common and interconnected questions of law and fact. Their respective learned counsel for the parties have unequivocally agreed and consented to a joint hearing and determination, it is both prudent and efficient to adjudicate these matters collectively. Such consolidation not only ensures uniformity in the adjudication process but also promotes judicial economy by avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and potential conflicting rulings. Consequently, these petitions are being decided together in a comprehensive manner.

2. Pursuant to the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pertinent facts and circumstances have been carefully extracted and taken into consideration from the record bearing CR-4526- 2025, which has been duly relied upon for the purpose of adjudication in the present matter.

3. The petitioner-tenant and original respondent has instituted these two revision petitions impugning the judgment and order rendered by the learned Appellate Authority. The said authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, thereby affirming and sustaining the decision rendered by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana. The petitioner-tenant now seeks to assail the correctness and legality of the appellate judgment through these revision petitions, contending that the findings recorded below were erroneous and warrant interference by this Court.

4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as follows:-

4.1. The demised premises was originally owned by Dogar Mal and Baldev Kishan and was leased to Kimti Lal Kapoor, the predecessor-in-

₹

interest of the petitioner, by Dogar Mal for a monthly rent of 550/-. Upon the death of Dogar Mal, his legal heirs along with Baldev Kishan sold the demised premises to Veer Chand Bhatia through a registered sale deed dated 16.12.2005. Subsequently, Veer Chand Bhatia transferred ownership of the demised premises to the respondent/petitioner by way of a sale deed dated

18.12.2017.

4.2. Following the sale in favour of the respondent/petitioner, the petitioner-tenant commenced payment of rent to the respondent/petitioner, the landlord. Thereafter, an ejectment petition was filed on the grounds that the petitioner-tenant had defaulted in paying rent since 01.04.2014 and that the premises was required by the respondent/petitioner for personal use. Additionally, a separate petition was filed for the respondent/petitioner’s son, Nanak Bhatia, asserting that the petitioner is operating a boutique on the first floor of the demised premises and intends to expand her business by opening a showroom on the demised premises. Meanwhile, her son Nanak Bhatia is engaged in hosiery business on the second floor and seeks to acquire the adjoining shop to enlarge his showroom for display and sale of hosiery items.

4.3. It is further averred that the petitioner-tenant has ceased to occupy the premises, which is presently lying locked and vacant.

5. The petitioner/tenant contested the petition by asserting that it was filed in collusion with Veer Chand Bhatia and Vijay Bhatia. It was contended that the petitioner’s family had earlier owned the premises and had executed a sale deed in favour of Veer Chand Bhatia, an NRI and the uncle of the petitioner’s husband. Veer Chand Bh