IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-7808-CII-2025 in/and CR-4056-2019(O&M)

Date of decision: 15.10.2025 Ram Singh (deceased) through his LRs … Petitioner Versus Shree Sanatan Dharam Sabha (Regd.) Hathi Wala Mandir Bathinda … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. C.S. Jatana, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

CM-7808-CII-2025 This is an application preferred under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking restoration of the revision petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 09.04.2025.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 09.04.2025, vide which the revision petition was dismissed for non- prosecution, is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number.

CR-4056-2019(O&M)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails impugned order dated 20.03.2019, passed by the Rent Controller, Bathinda, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC (Annexure P-3) for framing of an additional issue was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that an eviction petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Rent Act’) was instituted by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant for eviction from a shop situated opposite Gole Diggi Market, Mall Road, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised premises’) on the ground of bona fide personal necessity.

3. The eviction petition was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-2), wherein it was denied that the demised premises was required for the personal necessity of the respondent-landlord. It was also contended that the demised premises formed a part of SSD Shopping Complex, and that there was no document to show that the SSD Sabha and SSD Shopping Complex were one and the same entity.

4. During the pendency of the eviction petition, an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC (Annexure P-3) was moved for framing of an additional issue to the effect, as to whether the demised premises formed a part of the School or the Shopping Complex. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-4), wherein it was submitted that all shops were an integral part of the School building.

5. By way of the impugned order dated 20.03.2019, the said application was dismissed, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the Rent Controller, Bathinda, erred in dismissing the application (Annexure P-3). He submits that the said issue ought to have been framed, as a specific objection to this effect was raised in the written statement. He further submits that in all other eviction petitions filed by the respondent-landlord, a similar issue has been framed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that the Rent Controller has rightly observed that issue No.1, i.e., “Whether the shop in question is bona fidely required by the applicant Sabha for its own personal use and occupation.” would cover the question/issue as regards the demised premises being a part of the School or being a part of the Shopping Complex. However, learned counsel has conceded that in other eviction petitions, a specific issue in this regard has been framed, though subsequently.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10. Concededly, the matter was at a preliminary stage when the application for framing of an additional issue was moved. Even otherwise, issues can be framed and re-framed at any stage. A specific objection has been raised that the