IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.2166 of 2021(O&M)

Reserved on 27.09.2022

Pronounced on: October 27, 2022

Sukhbir

.........Petitioner

VERSUS

Mangat Rai Kawatra

..........Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:-

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manoj Taya, Advocate, and

Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate,

for the respondent.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

The present revision petition has been filed at the instance of

the petitioner-tenant challenging the eviction order dated 03.02.2018

passed against him by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the

appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 10.08.2021.

Brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that the

respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against petitioner-tenant

qua tenanted premises comprised of two shops measuring 20 X 20 ft.,

forming part of property No.17-A, Narain Singh Park, Panipat. Eviction

was sought on the ground of arrears of rent; bona fide necessity of the

respondent as well as structural alterations having been made by the

petitioner-tenant resulting into weakening of the tenanted premises. In

response, the petitioner-tenant filed his written statement admitting the

factum of tenancy besides tendering the arrears of rent before the

learned Rent Controller. Further, the petitioner-tenant disputed the bona

SANJAY GUPTA

2022.10.31 17:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

fide necessity of the respondent-landlord and also challenged the

averment of having made any structural alterations in the tenanted

premises.

The respondent-landlord filed a rejoinder to the written

statement of the petitioner-tenant. The learned Rent Controller vide its

order dated 03.02.2018, allowed the eviction petition holding that the

tenanted premises was required by the respondent-landlord for his own

bona fide need, though, the plea raised by landlord qua tenant having

impaired the value of tenanted premises did not find favour with the

Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the eviction order dated 03.02.2018

the petitioner filed first appeal. However, the Appellate Authority vide its

impugned judgment dated 10.08.2021, dismissed the same thereby

confirming the eviction order passed against the petitioner on the ground

of bona fide need of the respondent-landlord.

Challenging the eviction orders passed by the authorities

below, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the

respondent-landlord has failed to plead the basic necessary ingredients

of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and

Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in his eviction

petition. He further submits that there has been concealment on the part

of the respondent as regards he having been in occupation of one shop

besides one another shop in occupation of other tenant, namely,

Deepak. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even

no particulars have been mentioned by the respondent-landlord in the

entire petition giving details as regards his requirement and as such, no

case was made out in his favour on this point. For the said purpose, he

SANJAY GUPTA

2022.10.31 17:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

has specifically referred to para 4(b) of the eviction petition, besides the

statement made by the respondent-landlord while appearing as PW-1.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner

also made reference of case titled as Shankar Lal Vs. Madan Lal and

others 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 139, so as to contend that neither the

respondent-landlord pleaded the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of

1973 Act, in his rent petition nor even did he take any steps to prove the

same in his evidence while appearing as PW-1 and it was only in his

cross-examination, he was forced to admit the factum of owning the