(119) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.05.2026

1. CR-2679-2026 (O&M)

VEENA SOBTI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR ...Petitioner Vs.

HARVINOD SINGH WALIA ...Respondent

2. CR-3221-2026 (O&M)

SUCHA SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

HARVINOD SINGH WALIA ...Respondent

3. CR-2717-2026 (O&M)

DR. PAWAN KUMAR ...Petitioner Vs.

HARVINOD SINGH WALIA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. V. K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby the ejectment petitions instituted by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioners from the demised shops were allowed on the ground of non- payment of rent. The respondent had sought ejectment in the capacity of a subsequent purchaser/co-owner of the property along with his wife. Challenge has also been laid to the judgments dated 22.01.2026 and 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent/landlord had instituted the ejectment petitions claiming himself to be the owner/landlord of the demised premises on the basis that Charanjit Kaur, the previous owner in possession, had sold the demised premises to one Subeg Singh vide registered sale deed dated 13.05.1993, and thereafter, in the year 2003, Subeg Singh transferred the said premises in favour of the respondent/petitioner. On the strength of the said transfer, it was claimed that the respondent/petitioner became entitled to recover rent from the petitioners/tenants and consequently stepped into the shoes of the landlord in respect of the demised premises. The ejectment petitions were filed primarily on the ground of non-payment of rent, alleging that the petitioners/tenants had failed to pay rent w.e.f. 13.09.1993 till the date of filing of the petitions. It was further alleged that the petitioners/tenants were also creating nuisance whenever the respondent/landlord demanded rent from them. The petitioners/tenants contested the ejectment petitions by filing written statements, wherein they specifically denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was contended that the title of the respondent/petitioner over the demised premises was not clear and, therefore, he could not claim the status of landlord. The rate of rent as alleged by the respondent was also disputed, and according to the petitioners, the agreed rent was only Rs.100/- per month. After considering the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petitions. The appeals preferred by the petitioners before the learned Appellate Authority also came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgments. Aggrieved against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, the present revision petitions have been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the authorities below have failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence available on record and have returned findings based upon surmises and conjectures. It is argued that the impugned findings suffer from misreading of evidence and erroneous appreciation of material facts. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the sale deed dated 20.09.2013, allegedly executed in favour of the respondent/landlord, has not been duly proved in accordance with law. It is contended that the witnesses examined by the respondent/landlord were unable to depose satisfactorily with regard to the payment of sale consideration, and even the scribe of the sale deed failed to properly identify the vendor from the photographs appended with the sale deed. It is further contended that the Wi