##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

CR-4055-2026

Date of decision: 14.05.2026

Ram Bilas (deceased) through legal heirs

. . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Ashutosh Sharma

. . . . Respondent

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Rahul Deswal , Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant assailing

the judgment dated 27.02.2026 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jind,

whereby the appeal preferred against the ejectment order dated 26.10.2018

passed by learned Rent Controller, Jind was dismissed and the order of eviction

was affirmed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent-landlord had instituted an

ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and

Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised

shop situated at Janta Bazaar, Jind on the grounds of arrears of rent, change of

user and bona fide personal necessity. The case of the landlord was that the

demised premises were required by him for starting his own business of sale

and supply of cleaning products.

3. The tenant contested the petition primarily by disputing the bona

fide requirement and by alleging that the family of the landlord possessed

several other commercial properties.

4. Upon appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence,

learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition on the ground of bona

fide personal necessity. The appeal preferred by the tenant has also been

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.15 14:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-4055-2026 2026:PHHC:076353

dismissed by learned Appellate Authority after detailed consideration of the

entire material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts

below have misread the evidence while recording findings regarding bona fide

necessity. It is contended that the landlord and his family own several other

shops and, therefore, the requirement projected by the landlord is not

genuine. It has further been argued that the landlord is financially well settled

and there was no real necessity for him to start any independent business.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the paper-book.

7. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Act is limited.

Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are not to be

interfered with unless shown to be suffering from patent illegality, perversity or

material misreading of evidence. In the present case, both the learned Rent

Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have, after elaborate

discussion of the evidence, concurrently held that the requirement projected

by the respondent-landlord is bona fide.

8. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly noticed that the

relationship of landlord and tenant stood duly established from the

documentary evidence as well as admissions suffered by the petitioner himself.

It has specifically been noticed that notices regarding transfer of ownership/

landlordship in favour of the respondent-landlord had been issued to the

tenant and even rent had been tendered to the respondent during pendency of

the proceedings.

9. The contention regarding availability of alternative

accommodation has also been thoroughly examined by the courts below. The

petitioner failed to produce any cogent evidence establishing that the

respondent-landlord was in possession of any vacant commercial premises

suitable for the business sought to be commenced by him. Mere bald

allegations regarding ownership of several shops by family members cannot

defeat the bona fide requirement of the landlord.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.15 14:59

I attest to the accuracy and Page 2 of 4

integrity of this document

CR-4055-2026 2026:PHHC:076353

10. It is by now well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his

requirement and the tenant cannot dictate as to how and in what manner the

landlord should utilize his property. The argument that the landlor