##PAGE1##

1 CR-4304-2023 (O&M)

201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-4304-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: May 18, 2026

RAJ KUMARI ........Petitioner

Versus

GIAN KAUR ........Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Anmol Sharma Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate for the respondent.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to

an order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Authority,

Kapurthala whereby, an order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned Rent

Controller, Phagwara has been set aside thereby resulting into an order of

eviction passed against petitioner-tenant.

2. Briefly stating, respondent-landlady while claiming herself to be

the owner-cum-landlady filed an eviction petition qua the demised premises

consisting of a shop situated at street No.7, Subhash Nagar, Phagwara,

District Kapurthala (as detailed in the head note of her eviction petition)

against the petitioner-tenant. The eviction was sought on the grounds of

arrears of rent as well as the bona fide personal necessity of the

respondent-landlady and her son namely Yudhvir Singh.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared before the learned

Rent Controller and filed a detailed written statement, opposing the prayer

made on behalf of the respondents-landlady. Besides disputing the claim

regarding bona-fide necessity of the respondent-landlady and her son, the

petitioner-tenant also contested the eviction petition on the ground that the

respondent-landlady did not approach the Court with clean hands and there

was material concealment on her part as she failed to disclose the factum of

2 other shops in her possession besides the two mentioned in her eviction

petition. The learned Rent Controller, vide decision dated 19.12.2019

dismissed the eviction petition preferred at the instance of respondent-

TEJWINDER SINGH

2026.05.25 19:13

I agree to specified portions

of this document

2 CR-4304-2023 (O&M)

landlady while non-suiting her on the ground of concealment regarding the

other two shops owned by her. Being aggrieved, the respondent-landlady

preferred First Appeal. The learned Appellate Authority, vide decision dated

18.07.2023 accepted the appeal preferred at the instance of respondent-

landlady and ordered eviction against the petitioner-tenant while holding

that the bona fide and genuine need of the respondent-landlady and also

her son qua the demised shop stood duly established on record. Hence, the

present revision petition.

4. Impugning the aforementioned decision passed by the learned

Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that in

the present case the eviction petition preferred at the instance of

respondent-landlady was liable to be dismissed as there was an apparent

concealment with respect to the other two shops owned by her in the same

building. Learned counsel submits that in the eviction petition, respondent-

landlady merely mentioned about two shops whereas, factually she owned

4 shops in the same premises and thus, she was liable to be non-suited on

the ground of concealment of material facts. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also contends that in the given facts and circumstances, when the

respondent-landlady was admittedly already in possession of one shop, her

alleged need qua the demised shop was never established on record and

thus, the eviction petition preferred by her was liable to be dismissed. No

other argument has been addressed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that in the present case, there was no concealment on the part of

respondent-landlady as the factum of other two shops was duly disclosed

by her in the replication preferred to the written statement filed on behalf of

petitioner-tenant. He also submits that the entire case set up by the

respondent-landlady in her eviction petition was to the effect that she

intended to use two adjoining shops i.