Iqbal Singh Iqbal Singh v. Barjinder Pal Singh Gill and others Barjinder Pal Singh and others
Case Details
CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH R-8167-2014 (O&M) CR Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 Date of Decision: Iqbal Singh Iqbal Singh VERSUS Barjinder Pal Singh Gill and others Barjinder Pal Singh and others ...Petitioner ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Divanshu Jain, Advocate Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, By way of present revision petition challenge has been By way of present revision petition challenge has been By way of present revision petition challenge has been passed by learned Rent Controller, laid to an order dated 29.09.2014 passed by learned Rent Controller, passed by learned Rent Controller, laid to an order dated Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent Chandigarh, in an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punjab owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punj Nos.1 to 4/co-owners involving Section 13 B of the East Punj Nos.1 to 4 Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby an Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby an Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby an Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 Act’, whereby an application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on application moved under Section 18 A (4) of the 1949 Act filed on behalf of the petitioner/tenant for seeking leave to contest, came to behalf of the petitioner/tenant for seeking leave to contest, came to behalf of the petitioner/tenant for seeking leave to contest, came to behalf of the petitioner/tenant for seeking leave to contest, came to viction order against be declined thereby resulting into passing of an eviction order against be declined thereby resulting into passing of an e be declined thereby resulting into passing of an e them. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [2] 2. The present dispute relates to the demised premises The present dispute relates to the demised premises The present dispute relates to the demised premises consisting of half bay of ground floor, measuring 16 ½’ x 40’ consisting of of SCO half bay of ground floor, measuring 16 ½’ x 40’ of SCO No.83-84, Sector 17 D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, D, Chandigarh. As per the eviction petition, respondent No.1 to 4 happen to be co respondent owners of the building in happen to be co-owners of the building in question i.e. SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17 question i.e. SCO No. 83 D, Chandigarh (hereinafter 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh (hereinafter refered to as the ‘building’). refered to as the ‘building’). Respondents let out the demised premises Contesting Respondents let out the demised premises Respondents let out the demised premises forming part of SCO No. 83-84, Sector 17 forming part of SCO No. 83 D, Chandigarh, (hereinafter 84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘demised premises’) to the petitioner referred to in the year 1979 as ‘demised premises’) to the petitioner in the year 1979 per month in May and gradually the rent was increased to Rs.4700/- per month in May and gradually the rent was increased to Rs.4700/ and gradually the rent was increased to Rs.4700/ . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created 1997. Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created . Besides it, the following other tenancies were also created about different portions of the building in question:- about different portions of the building in question: about different portions of the building in question: (i) measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor Area measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor measuring 17’ x 28’ on the ground floor (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ (front portion) rented out to Harjit Singh @ per month; Rs.26215/- per month; ortion on the ground floor and basement (ii) Portion on the ground floor and basement ortion on the ground floor and basement (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; (back side) rented out to Iqbal Singh; (iii) Portion of 1st and 2nd rented out to Canam rented out to Canam Consultants Limited; Consultants Lim Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were (iv) Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were Paramjit Sidhu and Saroj Bala were separately rented out some portion of 3rd separately rented out some portion of 3rd separately rented out some portion of 3rd floor. 3. Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been Claiming themselves to be Non Resident Indians been permanently settled in England and running successful business permanently settled in England and running successful business permanently settled in England and running successful business permanently settled in England and running successful business there, the contesting respondents invoked there, the B of the 1949 respondents invoked Section 13-B of the 1949 SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [3] Act, seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demises premises on Act, seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demises premises on Act, seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demises premises on Act, seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demises premises on the ground that the same was required for their personal use and the ground that the same was required for their personal use and the ground that the same was required for their personal use and the ground that the same was required for their personal use and occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the occupation for setting up of Readymade Garments business in the also for setting up of an office northern region of the country and also for setting up of an office also for setting up of an office northern region of the country and number of other previous eviction therein. It was also pleaded that number of other previous eviction number of other previous eviction therein. It was also pleaded that the petitions while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act against the petitions while invoking Section 13 petitions while invoking Section 13 petitioner regarding the demised premises were pending adjudication. petitioner regarding the demised premises were pending adjudication. petitioner regarding the demised premises were pending adjudication. petitioner regarding the demised premises were pending adjudication. d that the possession of respondent No.5 over It was further pleaded that the possession of respondent No.5 over d that the possession of respondent No.5 over It was further pleade the demised premises under a the demised premises under a the demised premises under a the demised premises under a franchise agreement dated franchise agreement dated franchise agreement dated franchise agreement dated 16.03.2009 with petitioner was unauthorized. 16.03.2009 with petitioner was unauthorized. 16.03.2009 with petitioner was unauthorized. 4. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the Rent Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the Rent Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the Rent ection 18A (4) & Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under Section 18A (4) & Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under S Controller, Chandigarh and filed application under S (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, (5) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, inter-alia alia on the following grounds:- (a) Some portion of building in question was Some portion of building in question was Some portion of building in question was
Legal Reasoning
which thus, prima facie, made ground for grant of made a valid ground for grant of leave to contest in favour of petitioner regard, in favour of petitioners. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the decision rend ered by this placed upon the decision rendered by this Court in case “R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public R.D. Singh, Principal, New Public School and another Versus Kirpal Singh Sethi”, School and another Versus Kirpal Singh Sethi School and another Versus Kirpal Singh Sethi reported as 2018 (1) RCR (Rent) 616 and in case “Hans reported as 2018 (1) RCR Hans ”, reported as 2009 (2) RCR Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur”, reported as 2009 (2) RCR Raj Versus Malkiat Kaur that another (Rent) 667. Learned counsel also submitted that another (Rent) 667. Learned counsel also submitted eviction petition against tenant Harjit Singh was filed eviction petition against tenant Harjit Singh was filed eviction petition against tenant Harjit Singh was filed B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was B of the 1949 Act, yet the same was withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. (ii) Leave to contest was granted to simila (ii) contest was granted to similarly placed tenant tenant – Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Iqbal Singh qua another portion of the building in question Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated he said eviction 19.09.2016 and the proceedings in the said eviction 19.09.2016 and the proceedings in t petition were at petition were at the the final stage; final stage; thus, thus, in such in such circumstances, the case of petitioner being identically se of petitioner being identically placed, leave to contest was him was required to be granted to him as well. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the . Reliance in this regard was placed upon the decisions passed by this Court in case (i) “Mukand Lal decisions passed by this Cou Mukand Lal ed as 2009 (3) Bawa Versus Satwant Singh”, reported as 2009 (3) Bawa Versus Satwant Singh RCR (Civil) 208; (ii) Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2014, titled Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2014, titled decided Jaswinder Singh Versus Bakhshish Singh” decided “Jaswinder Singh Versus Bakhshish Singh on 20.04.2017 and (iii) Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2013, Civil Revision No. 6047 of 2013, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [7] titled “Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh Smt. Kaushalya Rani Versus Gurminder Singh Kahlon” decided on dated 05.04.201 dated 05.04.2017. (iii) i) An eviction petition under Section 13 B of the 1949 Act under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act s filed at the instance of two of the respondents being was filed at the instance of two of the respondents being s filed at the instance of two of the respondents being co-sharers of another premises / SCO Nos. 317, 318, sharers of another premises / SCO Nos. 317, 318, ndigarh, another eviction petition under Sector-35B, Chandigarh, another eviction petition under ndigarh, another eviction petition under the same provision while pleading the bona fide necessi the same provision while pleadi necessity not qua the demised premises at their instance was not qua the demised premises at their instance was as under the statutory provisions of Section maintainable as under the statutory provisions of Section as under the statutory provisions of Section B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for 13-B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for B of 1949 Act an owner could apply only once for seeking immediate possession of one building during his seeking immediate possession of one building during his seeking immediate possession of one building during his life time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present life time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present life time. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present the building in eviction petition qua the demised portion of the building in eviction petition qua the demised question was not maintainable. question was not maintainable. Some portion of building in question was sold to Sh.V.K. (iv) Some portion of building in question was sold to Sh.V.K. Some portion of building in question was sold to Sh.V.K. (iv) Awasthi and his son as well as to one Harjeet Kaur Awasthi and his son as well as to one Harjeet Kaur Awasthi and his son as well as to one Harjeet Kaur between 2001 to 2004, besides having rented out some between 2001 to 2004, besides having rented out some between 2001 to 2004, besides having rented out some r to Harjit Singh other portions of ground floor and top floor to Harjit Singh other portions of ground floor and top floo and Paramjit Singh as well as Saroj Bala, respectively, and Paramjit Singh as well as Saroj Bala, respectively, and Paramjit Singh as well as Saroj Bala, respectively, need of respondents was not therefore, bona fide need of respondents was not need of respondents was not established particularly when they had not returned back established particularly when they had not returned back established particularly when they had not returned back to India and were running their successful business in to India and were running their successful business in to India and were running their successful business in England. (v) Around 1/8th share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in share of the two SCOs i.e. the building in question was purchased by the petitioner from other co- purchased by the petitioner from other co owners vide sale deed dated 09.10.2001 therefore, vide sale deed dated 09.10.2001 and therefore, petitioner having become co having become co-sharer/co-owner therein therein could not be evicted from the It was evicted from the demised premises. It was owners of the also submitted that neither all the other co-owners of the also submitted that neither all the other co building in question were impleaded as parties; nor their building in question were impleaded as parties; nor their building in question were impleaded as parties; nor their SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [8] consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition consent was obtained before filing the eviction petition and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. dated 19.05.2016 followed by the dated 19.05.2016 followed by the (vi) Preliminary decree dated 19.05.2016 followed by the (vi) was passed by the Civil final decree dated 10.10.2018 was passed by the Civil final decree dated 10.10.2018 Court with regard to the building in a suit for building in question in a suit for owner partition filed at the instance of one of the co-owner partition filed at the instance of one of the co Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at the Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at t Harjeet Kaur and as such eviction petition filed at t instance of respondents was liable to be dismissed. instance of respondents was liable to be dismissed There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between (vii) There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between (vii) the parties as the demised portion of building in question the parties as the demised portion of building in question the parties as the demised portion of building in question as rented out to petitioner by Karnail Singh and this fact as rented out to petitioner by Karnail Singh and this fact as rented out to petitioner by Karnail Singh and this fact was admitted by the predecessor interest of contesting predecessor-in-interest of contesting Sh.S.S. Gill while appearing as PW2 in respondents-Sh.S.S. Gill while appearing as PW2 in Sh.S.S. Gill while appearing as PW2 in eviction petition No.193 of 1998 and therefore, the eviction petition No.193 of 1998 and therefore, the eviction petition No.193 of 1998 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for grant of leave to contest. petitioner was entitled for grant of leave to contest. 8. contesting On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the premises in question was required for respondents submits that the premises in question was required for respondents submits that the premises in question was required for respondents submits that the premises in question was required for need of the respondents who were running the personal bona fide need of the respondents who were running need of the respondents who were running the personal successful business in England and now wanted to set up their successful business in England and now wanted to set up their successful business in England and now wanted to set up their successful business in England and now wanted to set up their Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. Readymade Garments trade in the northern region of the country. withdrawal of eviction petition filed under With regard to filing and withdrawal of eviction petition filed under withdrawal of eviction petition filed under With regard to 49 Act against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an Section 13-B of 1949 Act against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an 49 Act against Harjit Singh i.e. a tenant over an Section 13 of the ground floor (front portion), it was area measuring 17’ x 28’ of the ground floor (front portion), it was of the ground floor (front portion), it was area measuring 17’ x 28 submitted that the same was done while keeping in view the submitted that the same was done while keeping in view the submitted that the same was done while keeping in view the submitted that the same was done while keeping in view the requirement and suitability of respondents and eviction was sought requirement and suitability of respondents and eviction was sought requirement and suitability of respondents and eviction was sought requirement and suitability of respondents and eviction was sought for against the petitioner qua the 1/2 bay portion of ground for agains floor and the 1/2 bay portion of ground floor and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [9] separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, also separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, separate eviction petitions were filed against other tenants, namely, Canam Consultants Limited, from 1st and 2nd floor as well as floor as well as namely, Canam Consultants Limited, from 1 namely, Canam Consultants Limited, from 1 against Harjit Kaur from ground floor (front portion) as r against Harjit Kaur ented out to from ground floor (front portion) as rented out to them. Further, it was specifically denied that any portion of building in them. Further, it was specifically denied that any portion of building in them. Further, it was specifically denied that any portion of building in them. Further, it was specifically denied that any portion of building in question was ever sold by the contesting question was ever sold by the respondents being its co- contesting respondents being its co owners. 8.1 With regard to the maintainability of the eviction petition With regard to the maintainability of the eviction petition With regard to the maintainability of the eviction petition on the ground that no objection from other co on the ground that no objecti owners was obtained, it on from other co-owners was obtained, it was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of was submitted that the demised premises was rented out in favour of petitioner by the contesting respondents being its co petitioner by the owners and respondents being its co-owners and thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal thus, they were entitled to seek eviction of the same for their personal ccupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act use and occupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act ccupation while invoking Section 13 B of the 1949 Act use and o owners and mere fact without even obtaining the consent of other co-owners and mere fact without even obtaining the consent of other co without even obtaining the consent of other co that the petitioner had purchased some share of the building in that the petitioner had purchased some share of the building in that the petitioner had purchased some share of the building in that the petitioner had purchased some share of the building in question from another co-owner was not going to change question from another co status of owner was not going to change his status of being tenant under eing tenant under them. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book(s), but unable to find substance in the through the paper-book(s), but unable to find substance in the book(s), but unable to find substance in the through the paper submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 10. preferred at Mere fact that the previous eviction petitions preferred at Mere fact that the previous eviction petition the instance of contesting respondents against the instance of respondents against the petitioner the petitioner on various ground grounds while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act were while invoking Section 13 of the 1949 Act were pending adjudication before the Rent Controller pending adjudication before the not Rent Controller, Chandigarh was not SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [10] going to make any difference qua their going to make any difference as envisaged under their remedy as envisaged under B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred Section 13-B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred B of the 1949 Act; the same being special right conferred Section 13 upon them being them being the co-owners of the to seek its the building in question to seek its immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in immediate possession on the ground of personal need. Reference in udgment passed by a Coordinate this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate udgment passed by a Coordinate this regard can be made to the j Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (Dead) , reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof through LRs, reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof , reported as 2010 (2) Rent LR 74 and para 48 thereof through LRs being relevant, is extracted hereunder:- being relevant, is extracted hereunder: being relevant, is extracted hereunder: “48. The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction pet ition The dismissal of the above mentioned eviction petition landlady in default, in my view, filed by the respondent-landlady in default, in my view, filed by the respondent has no material bearing at all on the merits of the has no material bearing at all on the merits of the has no material bearing at all on the merits of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the eviction petitions filed by her under Section 13B of the Resident Act which confers a special right on the Non-Resident Act which confers a special right on the Non Indian-owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily owner to seek eviction of his tenant summarily and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed and statutorily with presumes that the need expressed landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the by such NRI-landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the landlord is genuine and bonafide. In the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, neither any issue as to whether or not the demised premises any issue as to whether or not the demised premises any issue as to whether or not the demised premises e respondent for her personal use was required by the respondent for her personal use e respondent for her personal use and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. and occupation was framed nor any finding returned. Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, Even the dismissal of an eviction petition on merits, filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing filed under Section 13 of the Act, can have no bearing on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under on the merits of the subsequent petition filed under Section 138 of the Act. The non disclosure of an 138 of the Act. The non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the irrelevant fact, therefore, can cause no prejudice to the landlady.” respondent-landlady.” 11. tenant With respect to the plea on behalf of petitioner – tenant With respect to the plea on behalf of petitioner about grant of leave to contest in during the course of arguments about grant of leave to contest in about grant of leave to contest in during the course of arguments SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [11] favour of petitioner in another eviction petition filed qua separate r of petitioner in another eviction petition filed qua separate petitioner in another eviction petition filed qua separate be pointed out here that the said portion of building in question, it may be pointed out here that the said be pointed out here that the said portion of building in question Chandigarh order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Rent Controller was assailed at the instance of contesting was assailed at the instance of by way of contesting respondents by way of Civil Revision No. 2956 of 2018 and the same Civil Revision No. their 2956 of 2018 and the same got allowed in their favour vide order of even date vide order of even date, thereby grant , thereby rejecting the prayer for grant followed by an order of eviction of leave to contest to the petitioner followed by an order of eviction followed by an order of eviction of leave to contest to passed against him in terms of Secti passed against him in terms of ection 13–B of the 1949 A Act. Accordingly, the petitioner –tenant cannot Accordingly, the petitioner draw any tenant cannot be permitted to draw any Moreover, reference at this stage would be benefit out of the same. Moreover, reference at this stage would be Moreover, reference at this stage would be benefit out of the same. relevant to the observations made by this Court in the case of “Blue relevant to the observations made by this Court in the case of “ relevant to the observations made by this Court in the case of “ Blue Sky Worldwide Travels and another Vs. Harvinder Singh Sky Worldwide Travels and , 2015 another Vs. Harvinder Singh”, 2015 (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted (2) RCR (Rent) 49, and para 8 thereof being relevant is extracted hereunder:- hereunder: “8. The contention that in respect of yet another The contention that in respect of yet another The contention that in respect of yet another tenement within the same complex of building, a tenement within the same complex of building, a tenement within the same complex of building, a tenant has obtained an order of stay before this tenant has obtained an order of stay before t tenant has obtained an order of stay before t court could hardly be a ground for me to deny court could hardly be a ground for me to deny court could hardly be a ground for me to deny consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A consideration of the bonafides of the landlord. A landlord which seeks for eviction of several landlord which seeks for eviction of several landlord which seeks for eviction of several tenements may come by several obstructions and tenements may come by several obstructions and tenements may come by several obstructions and if he must wait for a period that all orders of if he must wait for a period that all orders of if he must wait for a period that all orders of passed simultaneously, we must eviction must be passed simultaneously, we must eviction must be be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge be living in Utopia out of sync with no knowledge of how our courts function. Each court takes its of how our courts function. Each court takes its of how our courts function. Each court takes its own time and there is no particular strategy that own time and there is no particular strategy that own time and there is no particular strategy that we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and we have evolved to put all cases on fast track and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [12] decided within any stipulated period. Section 13 decided within any stipu Section 13-B of the Act itself sets a different procedure and of the Act itself sets a different procedure and of the Act itself sets a different procedure and imposes a duty on a court to consider whether imposes a duty on a court to consider whether imposes a duty on a court to consider whether there is any case made by the respondent before there is any case made by the respondent before there is any case made by the respondent before take note of an he is allowed to defend. This is to take note of an he is allowed to defend. This is to existing reality that no litigation in India comes to existing reality that no litigation in India comes to existing reality that no litigation in India comes to close immediately and a defence under whatever close immediately and a defence under whatever close immediately and a defence under whatever grounds and however grounds and however grounds and however fragile will assure fragile will assure fragile will assure to to to litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. litigants a long period in the corridors of the court. If Section 13-B must be given a meaning, that B must be given a meaning, that meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on meaning, ought to be to enter a judicial finding on whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter whether there exists any tenable ground to fetter the the the landlord landlord landlord from claiming eviction. from claiming eviction. from claiming eviction. If If If the the the landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to landlord's fate of maintaining a petition is only to depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the depend on a successful claim of eviction of all the tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time tenements simultaneously, it will last a life time and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such and beyond. I will not, therefore, allow for such unusual contingency to prevail over my own unusual contingency to prevail over my own unusual contingency to prevail over my own judgment.” 12. Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made Further, no merits can be found in the submissions made fect that eviction petition invoking on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that eviction petition invoking fect that eviction petition invoking on behalf of the petitioner to the ef B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the Section 13-B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the B of 1949 Act was filed at the instance of two of the Section 13 owners along with others qua their joint respondents being co-owners along with others qua their joint owners along with others qua their joint respondents being co 18, sector 35, Chandigarh as property forming part of SCO No. 317–18, sector 35, Chandigarh as property forming part of SCO No. 317 property forming part of SCO No. 317 the same was never got adjudicated upon on merits and rather, it the same was never was udicated upon on merits and rather, it was withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed withdrawn on 20.03.2012, resultantly no eviction order was passed therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section therein. Further, mere filing of the said eviction petition under Section B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other 13-B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other B of the 1949 Act by two of the respondents along with their other SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [13] 318, Sector 35 shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317–318, Sector 35 shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317 co-shares in the building bearing SCO No. 317 be treated as bar for filing of present eviction Chandigarh was not to be treated as bar for filing of present eviction be treated as bar for filing of present eviction Chandigarh petition qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, petition qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, petition qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, petition qua the building in question as two of the respondents herein, ners with namely, Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co-owners with namely, Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co namely, Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill, being co others did not even achieve the actual benefit of others did not even handed over the actual benefit of been handed over ection 13 B of immediate possession of the said property in terms of Section 13 B of immediate possession of the said property in terms of immediate possession of the said property in terms of the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two the 1949 act and as such the special right available to the two Singh Gill was never respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir Singh Gill was never respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir respondents, namely Jasmeet Kaur and Dalbir substantially attained by them; which was thus substantially attained by them available to them once which was thus available to them once in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction in their lifetime qua one building; accordingly, the present eviction petition petition petition filed at filed at filed at their their their contesting instance, along with other contesting instance, along with other instance, along with other the demise premises forming part respondents, being co-owners qua the demise premises forming part the demise premises forming part respondents, being co maintainable as per law. of building in question was fully maintainable as per law. of building in question was 12. Also, the contesting preferred respondents having preferred respondents B of the 1949 Act against their eviction petition under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act against their B of the 1949 Act against their eviction petition under other tenant, namely, Harjit Singh; the s other tenant ame been withdrawn and the ; the same been withdrawn and the Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala filing of eviction petitions against Paramjit Singh or Saroj Bala filing of eviction petitions against non-filing of eviction petitions against who were some portion of third floor, respectively, of some portion of third floor, respectively, were in occupation of some portion of third floor, respectively, were the building in question was not to be treated as fatal as they were the building in question was not to be treated as fatal as the the building in question was not to be treated as fatal as the ion from a part of building in question as per their free to seek eviction from a part of building in question as per their ion from a part of building in question as per their free to seek evict The aforesaid reasoning is even requirement/ suitability and need. The aforesaid reasoning is even The aforesaid reasoning is even requirement derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section derived from the definition of building as envisaged under Section building’ 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term ‘building 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term 2(a) of the 1949 Act which clearly stipulates that the term SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [14] respondents also includes a part of it and therefore, the contesting respondents also includes a part of it and therefore, the also includes a part of it and therefore, the a part of building were well within their right to seek eviction of even a part of building were well within their right to seek eviction of were well within their right to seek eviction of while invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 Act while invoking Section 13 requirement B of the 1949 Act; as per their requirement and necessity with respect to the start of and necessity with respect to the start of new business. 13. From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it respondents were as established on record that the contesting respondents were as established on record that the was established on record that the residing in England for the last many decades; running their business residing in England for the last many decades; running their business residing in England for the last many decades; running their business residing in England for the last many decades; running their business n to invoke their and thus being NRI were having cause of action to invoke their and thus being NRI were having cause of actio and thus being NRI were having cause of actio special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised special right of seeking immediate possession of the demised of the 1949 Act. The premises as provided under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. The premises as provided under Section 13 premises as provided under Section 13 being successful businessmen and intending contesting respondents being successful businessmen and intending being successful businessmen and intending contesting to expand expand the same in the demised premises; their need the same in the demised premises; their bonafide need no substantial also established especially when there was no substantial also established especially when there was also established especially when there rebuttal to it by the petitioner/ tenant rebuttal to it by the for which burden was always / tenant for which burden was always . Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business upon him. Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business . Moreover, for the purposes of setting up of their business upon him in India, it was not at all essential for the contesting respondents in India, it was not at all essential for the in India, it was not at all essential for the respondents – landowners to shift themselves permanently landowners to shift themselves in advance as the same permanently in advance as the same ablished was going to cost them, in terms of their already well established was going to cost them, in terms of their already well est was going to cost them, in terms of their already well est business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby business in England; causing serious prejudice to them and thereby defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under defeating the intent and purpose of the special right provided under Section 13 n this regard, reliance can be placed upon ection 13-B of 1949 Act. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon n this regard, reliance can be placed upon the law laid laid down by this Court in case o ourt in case of Rakesh Sharma versus Rakesh Sharma versus Harmesh Singh, 2015 (1) RCR (Rent) Harmesh Singh 589. Relevant paragraph 10 (Rent) 589. Relevant paragraph 10 SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [15] of the this this judgment is reproduced hereunder judgment is reproduced hereunder:- The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the “10. The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the The factum of the ownership is not denied and in the present case, the sale deed was executed wayback present case, the sale deed was executed wayback present case, the sale deed was executed wayback on the basis of the rent note, the on 13.12.1991 and on the basis of the rent note, the on the basis of the rent note, the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the petitioner was put in possession. The fact that the respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi respondent is an NRI and was residing in Abu Dhabi had never been denied, as such and the only ground had never been denied, as such and the only ground had never been denied, as such and the only ground taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. taken is that he had not returned to India permanently. o been held that the return to India, as such, It has also been held that the return to India, as such, o been held that the return to India, as such, is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the is not to be permanent and the NRI can extend the business by staying in a foreign country and he can do business by staying in a foreign country and he can do business by staying in a foreign country and he can do that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of that with a temporary stay also. It is settled principle of granted on law that the leave to contest is only to be granted on law that the leave to contest is only to be the grounds raised in the application filed under the grounds raised in the application filed under the grounds raised in the application filed under A of the Act, which would show that triable Section 18-A of the Act, which would show that triable A of the Act, which would show that triable issues had been made out.” issues had been made out. 14. Further, the language of Section 13 B of the 1949 Act the language of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act contesting nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the contesting nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the nowhere talks about the term landlord and thus, the owners were undoubtedly having right to seek respondents being co-owners were undoubtedly having right to seek owners were undoubtedly having right to seek respondents on account of eviction/ immediate possession of the demised portion on account of eviction/ immediate possession of the demised eviction/ immediate possession of the demised their bona fide need. Reference in this their bona fide need. regard can be made to the this regard can be made to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being Kumar’s case (supra). For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being For convenience, Para 26 thereof, being Kumar’s case relevant is extracted hereunder:- relevant is extracted hereunder: “26. The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not The petitioners’ objections that the respondent is not le owner cannot sustain for the reason that a the sole owner cannot sustain for the reason that a le owner cannot sustain for the reason that a owner/ joint owner can also file eviction NRI co-owner/ joint owner can also file eviction owner/ joint owner can also file eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act.” petition under Section 13B of the Act.” SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [16] ourt in Similar observations have been made by this Court in Similar observations have been made by this case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Satnam Singh, reported as 2024 (1) RCR (Rent) 264 relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted Rent) 264 and relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted relevant portion from para 9 thereof is extracted here under:- here under: “9. ……In the instant case, the petitioner has ……In the instant case, the petitioner has ……In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed to have purchased the land over which claimed to have purchased the land over which claimed to have purchased the land over which the demised shop has been built along with his the demised shop has been built along with his the demised shop has been built along with his brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a brother Gurnam Singh. He asserted that a partition had been effected between himself and partition had been effected between himself and partition had been effected between himself and his brother and the land over which the demised his brother and the land over which the demised his brother and the land over which the demised shop is constructed had fallen to his share shop is constructed had fallen to his share shop is constructed had fallen to his share which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. which had been rented out to the respondent i.e. present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner present revision petitioner. Though the petitioner d any document on record to has not produced any document on record to has not produce show that the partition of the land over which the show that the partition of the land over which the show that the partition of the land over which the demised shop has been constructed has been demised shop has been constructed has been demised shop has been constructed has been effected between himself and his brother, effected between himself and his brother, effected between himself and his brother, however, even in the absence of any material however, even in the absence of any material however, even in the absence of any material coming on record to this effect, this Court is coming on record to this effect, this Court is coming on record to this effect, this Court is inclined to hold that even on assuming the inclined to hold that even on assuming the inclined to hold that even on assuming the owner of the demised shop, petitioner to be co-owner of the demised shop, petitioner to be co still there was no bar for him to file the petition still there was no bar for him to file the petition still there was no bar for him to file the petition seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is seeking ejectment of the respondent as there is no such requirement of law and even if a no such requirement of law and even if a no such requirement of law and even if a be the sole owner of landlord is not proved to be the sole owner of landlord is not proved to the property in dispute, he can take up the the property in dispute, he can take up the the property in dispute, he can take up the B of the Act, proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act, proceedings under Section 13 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance 1949. In this regard, this Court draws reliance Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, upon Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 470, wherein the Hon'ble SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [17] t had observed so. Reliance can also Apex Court had observed so. Reliance can also t had observed so. Reliance can also be placed upon Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh be placed upon Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 194, wherein a Bench of this Court had also observed so. As such, it is this Court had also observed so. As such, it is this Court had also observed so. As such, it is held that the argument as raised by the revision held that the argument as raised by the revision held that the argument as raised by the revision petitioner-respondent that since the petitioner respondent that since the petitioner was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the was not proved to be the exclusive owner of the demised shop, therefore, he could not seek demised shop, therefore, he could not seek demised shop, therefore, he could not seek ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be ejectment of the respondent, is liable to be rejected.” 15. e petitioner purchased 1/18th share Just because that the petitioner purchased 1/18th share e petitioner purchased 1/18th share from one of the building in question vide sale deed dated 09.10.2001 from one of the building in question vide sale deed dated of the building in question vide sale deed dated of the co co-owners, is not going to change status of being tenant not going to change his status of being tenant qua the demised premises been occupied under the qua the demised premises occupied under the respondents respondents. n the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Reference be placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme n the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Reference be placed o Court in case of “Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi Court in case of “ Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi Parmod Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being Husan Bano, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being , 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and para 21 thereof being Husan Ban relevant is reproduced hereunder:- relevant is reproduced hereunder: “21. In T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. (supra) this Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra) this Nithyananda Reddy Court considered the question in detail in the Court considered the question in detail in the Court considered the question in detail in the context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer context of Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that of Property Act and came to the conclusion that of Property Act and came to the conclusion that there is no determination of the lease in terms of there is no determination of the lease in terms of there is no determination of the lease in terms of erty Act Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Prop where a tenant acquires only partial ownership where a tenant acquires only partial ownership where a tenant acquires only partial ownership interest. After referring to the decision of the interest. After referring to the decision of the interest. After referring to the decision of the Privy Council, the decision of this Court and Privy Council, the decision of this Court and Privy Council, the decision of this Court and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [18] other relevant materials, this Court held that the other relevant materials, this Court held that the other relevant materials, this Court held that the lease cannot be said to have been determined lease cannot be said to have been determined lease cannot be said to have been determined so long as the interests of the lessee, by merger so long as the interests of the lessee, so long as the interests of the lessee, the lesser estate and that of the owner, the the lesser estate and that of the owner, the the lesser estate and that of the owner, the larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. larger estate, do not come to coalesce in full. This Court also noticed that merger was largely This Court also noticed that merger was largely This Court also noticed that merger was largely a question of intention dependant on certain a question of intention dependant on certain a question of intention dependant on certain will presume circumstances and the courts will presume circumstances and the courts against it when it operates to the disadvantage against it when it operates to the disadvantage against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party. With respect we find that the position of a party. With respect we find that the position of a party. With respect we find that the position has been correctly stated in T. Lakshmipathi has been correctly stated in T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra). The subsequent decision (supra). The subsequent decision in in India India facturing Co. and Others v. Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Others v. Umbrella Manu Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Shagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri (supra) also Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others (supra) also Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others proceeds on the same lines and supports the proceeds on the same lines and supports the proceeds on the same lines and supports the above position. We approve the principle of law above position. We approve the principle of law above position. We approve the principle of law stated in T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. T. Lakshmipathi and ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others da Reddy and others (supra).” 16. In addition, the fact that Harjeet one of the co- Harjeet Kaur being one of the co filed her objection to the eviction owners of the building in question; filed her objection to the eviction filed her objection to the eviction owners of the building in question; petitions; ; the contesting respondents / landlords were not to be non- / landlords were not to be non suited. N Harjeet Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of . Neither Harjeet Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of Harjeet Kaur was put to any loss qua possession of the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petitions; the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petition the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petition the demised premises on account of filing of ejectment petition brought on record by her to establish her share in the nothing been brought on record by her to establish her share in the brought on record by her to establish her share in the nothing been more than the portion of building in question joint ownership being more than the portion of building in question more than the portion of building in question joint ownership ch was beyond the portion left out of these eviction proceedings, which was beyond the portion left out of these eviction proceedings, ch was beyond the portion left out of these eviction proceedings, ch was beyond the portion left out of these eviction proceedings, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [19] going to suffer any financial loss towards rent. In nor she was thus going to suffer any financial loss towards rent. In going to suffer any financial loss towards rent. In nor she was the circumstances wherein, none of the other co the circumstances where ither none of the other co-owners either claimed to be the landlord of petitioner; or ever pleaded themselves to be the landlord of petitioner; or ever pleaded to be the landlord of petitioner; or ever pleaded any rent being paid to them, as such their any rent being paid consent was not at all as such their consent was not at all required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment required to be obtained for the purposes of filing of present ejectment petition by the contesting respondents/co petition by the for the purpose of respondents/co-owners for the purpose of invoking their special right under Section 13 invoking their special right under B of 1949 Act. It may ection 13-B of 1949 Act. It may also be pointed out here that even if Harjeet Kaur claimed any kind of also be pointed out here that even if Harjeet Kaur claimed any kind of also be pointed out here that even if Harjeet Kaur claimed any kind of also be pointed out here that even if Harjeet Kaur claimed any kind of financial loss, at best, she was to avail her financial loss, at best remedy of filing suit for avail her remedy of filing suit for d seek partition of recovery by way of rendition of account or/and seek partition of recovery by way of rendition of account or/an recovery by way of rendition of account or/an demises premises which as per records demises premises which as per (at the records was already subjudice (at the stage of passing of final decree) between the parties stage of passing of final Moreover, even ) between the parties. Moreover, even as per the final decree of partition passed as per the final decree of partition which is part of the records passed which is part of the records of bunch of these four revision petitions, the possession of bunch of these four r of any co- evision petitions, the possession of any co owners as per was not be disturbed and the rights of the co-owners as per was not be disturbed and the rights of the co owner was not be disturbed and the rights of the co their entitlement were to be settled upon putting their shares their entitlement were to be settled upon putting the their entitlement were to be settled upon putting the shares to . Further, the contesting respondents were held entitled for auction. Further, the contesting respondents were held entitled for . Further, the contesting respondents were held entitled for . Further, the contesting respondents were held entitled for re of the entire building in question, including the share 83.3328% share of the entire building in question, including the share re of the entire building in question, including the share 83.3328% sha of deceased Sh.S.S. Gill and petitioner was held entitled for 1% share of deceased Sh.S.S. Gill and petitioner was held entitled for 1% share of deceased Sh.S.S. Gill and petitioner was held entitled for 1% share of deceased Sh.S.S. Gill and petitioner was held entitled for 1% share only. 17. has not been established on record by the Further, it has not been established on record by the has not been established on record by the petitioner – tenant that any part of the building in question petitioner ever tenant that any part of the building in question has ever been sold by the sold by the contesting respondents landlords as the sale if any respondents–landlords as the sale if any SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [20] . In fact, Mr.S.S. Gill, i.e. the was only by the other owners. In fact, Mr.S.S. Gill, i.e. the . In fact, Mr.S.S. Gill, i.e. the was only by the other owners predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents predecessor being power of interest of the contesting respondents being power of attorney sold the share of another co- attorney sold the share of another co namely, Karnail Singh to -owner, namely, Karnail Singh to Mr.V.K.Awasthi and his son Sanjay Awasthi in 2003, but the same Mr.V.K.Awasthi and his son Sanjay Awasthi in 2003, but the same Mr.V.K.Awasthi and his son Sanjay Awasthi in 2003, but the same Mr.V.K.Awasthi and his son Sanjay Awasthi in 2003, but the same nowhere affects the rights of the respondents as even Sh.S.S.Gill nowhere affects the rights of the respondents as even Sh.S.S.Gill nowhere affects the rights of the respondents as even Sh.S.S.Gill nowhere affects the rights of the respondents as even Sh.S.S.Gill never sold any part of his share from the joint ownership. never sold any part of his share from the joint ownership. never sold any part of his share from the joint ownership. 18. Additionally, no substance can be Additionally, no substance can be nd found fou in in the the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the demised submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the demised submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the demised submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the demised owner Karnail Singh and premises was rented out to him by the co-owner Karnail Singh and premises was rented out to him by the co premises was rented out to him by the co thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the led to seek parties and the contesting respondents were not entitled to seek parties and the contesting respondents were not entit parties and the contesting respondents were not entit eviction of petitioner by invoking Section 13 of 1949 Act especially eviction of petitioner by invoking Section 13 of 1949 Act especially eviction of petitioner by invoking Section 13 of 1949 Act especially eviction of petitioner by invoking Section 13 of 1949 Act especially of evidence on when neither there was pleadings; nor even an iota of evidence on when neither there was pleadings; nor even an when neither there was pleadings; nor even an record to show that the rent was ever paid to Karnail Singh. record to show that the rent was ever paid to Karnail Singh. record to show that the rent was ever paid to Karnail Singh. record to show that the rent was ever paid to Karnail Singh. le appearing as Moreover, the statement made by Sh.S.S. Gill while appearing as Moreover, the statement made by Sh.S.S. Gill whi Moreover, the statement made by Sh.S.S. Gill whi PW2 in earlier eviction petition No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 13 PW2 in earlier eviction petition No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 13 PW2 in earlier eviction petition No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 13 PW2 in earlier eviction petition No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property of the 1949 Act to the effect that “it is possibly yes that the property owner Karnail Singh’ was not going to effect the was rented out by co-owner Karnail Singh’ was not going to effect the owner Karnail Singh’ was not going to effect the was rented out by co espondents as available under Section 13-B espondents as available under Section 13 rights of the contesting respondents as available under Section 13 rights of the contesting r of the 1949 Act, the same been conferring special right upon the of the 1949 Act, the same been conferring special right upon the of the 1949 Act, the same been conferring special right upon the of the 1949 Act, the same been conferring special right upon the owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised owner of a building to seek immediate possession of the demised B of the premises from the tenant. Again the language of Section 13-B of the premises from the tenant. Again the language of Section 13 premises from the tenant. Again the language of Section 13 e talks about the terms landlord and thus, the 1949 Act nowhere talks about the terms landlord and thus, the e talks about the terms landlord and thus, the 1949 Act nowher SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [21] owners were undoubtedly having contesting respondents being co-owners were undoubtedly having owners were undoubtedly having contesting respondents being co right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property right to seek eviction/ immediate possession of the demised property on account of their bona fide need. on account of their 19. alf of the petitioner Moreover, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner Moreover, the judgments cited on beh rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in do not come to his rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in rescue. With regard to the decisions passed in do not come to the cases of Kirpal Singh Sethi’s case (supra) and the cases of case case (supra) and Hans Raj’s case , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the (supra), it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the , it may be pointed out here that no decision passed by the as been brought on record by the competent Court of jurisdiction has been brought on record by the as been brought on record by the competent Court of jurisdiction h necessity of the petitioner so as to establish that the plea of bona fide necessity of the petitioner so as to establish that the plea of petitioner so as to establish that the plea of property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their property in question as set up by the respondents in any of their petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on petitions filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act was ever declined on case merits. Besides it, the decisions made in Mukand Lal Bawa’s case merits. Besides it, the decisions made in merits. Besides it, the decisions made in (supra), Smt. Kaushalya Rani’s (supra), case (supra) and Jaswinder Jaswinder Singh’s case (supra) again would not help the petitioner in view of case (supra) again would not help the petitioner in view of case (supra) again would not help the petitioner in view of the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Ved the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of the latest exposition of law made by this Court in the case of Ved , 2024 (2) RCR Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal, 2024 (2) RCR Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal Parkash and another Vs. Bupinder Singh Bansal elevant is extracted (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being relevant is extracted (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being r (Rent) 191 and para 28 thereof, being r hereunder:- hereunder: Close to the same, very true, as pointed out that “28. Close to the same, very true, as pointed out that Close to the same, very true, as pointed out that 5 other shops, relating to which, there are 4-5 other shops, relating to which, 5 other shops, relating to which, undisputedly ejectment petitions have been undisputedly ejectment petitions have been undisputedly ejectment petitions have been of filed. It is submitted that as per Section 13B of filed. It is submitted that as per the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can the ibid Act, it is only qua one shop, the NRI can apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the apply to seek eviction and therefore, filing of the petitions under Section 13B , qua all the shops in Section 13B, qua all the shops in SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [22] not maintainable. possession of tenants, is not maintainable. possession of tenants, is However, However, However, the aforesaid submission the aforesaid submission the aforesaid submission is not is not is not tenable. Suffice tenable. Suffice tenable. Suffice to make reference to make reference to make reference to to to the the the decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal decision rendered by this Court in 'Krishan Lal 2014, Dua vs. Shander Singh, in CR-4286-2014, Dua vs. Shander Singh, in CR decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held decided on 31.01.2020', wherein, it was held ed entire building, as also that 'building' included entire building, as also that 'building' includ part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded part of a building. The Hon'ble Court concluded that where the premises in possession of that where the premises in possession of that where the premises in possession of various tenants are part of same building, various tenants are part of same building, various tenants are part of same building, therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' therefore, it is covered by definition of 'building' arious and the landowner is entitled to maintain various and the landowner is entitled to maintain v petitions filed against the various tenants of the petitions filed against the various tenants of the petitions filed against the various tenants of the same building.” 20. Even otherwise, the petitioner in the given facts petitioner-tenant in the given facts neness of the need expressed by the has failed to rebut the genuineness of the need expressed by the neness of the need expressed by the has failed to rebut the genui contesting respondents – landlords in contesting for seeking landlords in his application, for seeking leave to contest and thus the same needs to be rejected. leave to contest and thus In such the same needs to be rejected. In such may be relevant to place reliance upon the circumstances, it may be relevant to place reliance upon the may be relevant to place reliance upon the circumstances, it judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini judgment of , 2005 (2) RCR Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, 2005 (2) RCR extracted (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are extracted (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are (Rent) 470 and paras 20 & 21 thereof being relevant are hereunder:- hereunder: “20. The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the The legislative intent of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI application for ejectment of the tenant filed by the NRI landlord is reflected from the summary procedure landlord is reflected from the summary procedure landlord is reflected from the summary procedure A of the Act of 1949 prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act of 1949 prescribed under Section 18 Controller to take up the matter on which requires the Controller to take up the matter on Controller to take up the matter on day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an day-to-day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an day basis till the conclusion of the hearing of an application. The Legislature wants the decision of the application. The Legislature wants the decision of the application. The Legislature wants the decision of the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [23] Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal Controller to be final and does not provide any appeal or second appeal against the order of eviction, it is or second appeal against the order of eviction, it i or second appeal against the order of eviction, it i only the High Court which can exercise the power of only the High Court which can exercise the power of only the High Court which can exercise the power of consideration of the case, whether the decision of the consideration of the case, whether the decision of the consideration of the case, whether the decision of the Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13- Controller is in accordance with law. Section 13 -B gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord gives right of ejectment to special category of landlord wner of the who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and owner of the who is NRI (Non Resident Indian); and o premises for five years before action is commenced. premises for five years before action is commenced. premises for five years before action is commenced. Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for Such a landlord is permitted to file an application for s. (3) of ejectment only once during his life time. Sub-s. (3) of ejectment only once during his life time. Sub Bimposes a restriction that he shall not Section 13-Bimposes a restriction that he shall not Bimposes a restriction that he shall not other means or lease out transfer through sale or any other means or lease out transfer through sale or any the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of the ejected premises before the expiry of the period of five years from the date of taking possession of the five years from the date of taking possession of the five years from the date of taking possession of the said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any said building. Not only that, if there is a breach of any B, of the conditions of sub-section (3) of Section 13-B, of the conditions of sub t is given a right of restoration of possession the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession t is given a right of restoration of possession B) of of the said building. Under sub-section (2-B) of of the said building. Under sub Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and Section 19 the landlord has to take possession and keep it for a continuous period of three months and he keep it for a continuous period of three months and he keep it for a continuous period of three months and he of is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part of is prohibited from letting out the whole or any part such building to any other person except the evicted such building to any other person except the evicted such building to any other person except the evicted tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be tenant and any contravention thereof, he shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term liable for punishment of imprisonment to the term which can be extended upto six months. These which can be extended upto six months. These which can be extended upto six months. These restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong esumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. esumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to Landlord, after the decree for possession, is bound to possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited possess the accommodation. Landlord is prohibited from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five from transferring it or letting it out for a period of five ions imposed on years Virtually conditions and restrictions imposed on years Virtually conditions and restrict the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI the NRI landlord makes it improbable for any NRI landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of a SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [24] tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous tenant unless his need is bona fide. No unscrupulous landlord probably, under this Section, would approach landlord probably, under this Section, would approach landlord probably, under this Section, would approach ant considering the the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the the Court for ejectment of the ten onerous conditions onerous conditions onerous conditions imposed on him by which imposed on him by which imposed on him by which practically he is deprived of his right in the property not practically he is deprived of his right in the property not practically he is deprived of his right in the property not only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. only as a lessor but also as the owner of the property. There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of There is a restriction imposed even on the transfer of r any other manner. The the property by sale or any other manner. The the property by sale o restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability restriction imposed on the landlord by all probability points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In points to the genuine requirement of the landlord. In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord provisions, for the tenants that whenever the landlord h the court he would approach when his would approach the court he would approach when his h the court he would approach when his course, subject need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of-course, subject need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent to tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under evidence. In our view, the proceeding taken up under Section 13-B by the NRI landlords for the ejectmen t of B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. entitle the tenant from proving But this would not dis- entitle the tenant from proving But this would not dis that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord ould lie on the tenant is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant is not genuine. A heavy burden w to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to supported by documentary evidence, if available, to supported by documentary evidence, if available, to he affidavit itself so that the support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the support his plea in t Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption n in n the the the landlords' landlords' landlords' favour favour favour that his that his that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and requirement of occupation of the premises is real and requirement of occupation of the premises is real and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [25] genuine. 21. We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned We cannot subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, that ed if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's need if the inquiry in the allegation of landlord's ne regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, regarding the bona fide and genuiness is permitted, the the the legislative legislative legislative intent of intent of intent of immediate delivery of immediate delivery of immediate delivery of possession of the accommodation owned by them possession of the accommodation owned by them possession of the accommodation owned by them would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid would be defeated. Time and again this Court has laid down that legislative intent has to be ascertained down that legislative intent has to be ascertained down that legislative intent has to be ascertained cording to plain language used in the enactment according to plain language used in the enactment cording to plain language used in the enactment and basic rule of statutory construction should be and basic rule of statutory construction should be and basic rule of statutory construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a preferred which advances the purpose and object of a preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice legislation and not which leads to anomalies, injustice ghese or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Verghese or absurdities. To refer some, they are K.P. Ver v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr., [1981] 4 SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants SCC 173; Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of 50 and Ravulu Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commnr. of Income- Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604. Tax, Madras, AIR (1956) SC 604.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in ’ble Apex Court in a latest decision of Mukesh Mukesh Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh, 2023 Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh 657, has 2023 (2) RCR (Rent) 657, has again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts again been pleased to reiterate that the onus to disclose such facts Para as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon tenant. Para as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon as would disentitle summary eviction is always upon is reproduced of the aforementioned judgment being relevant, is reproduced of the aforementioned judgment No.16 of the aforementioned judgment hereunder: under:- “16. From the scheme of things under Section 13 B From the scheme of things under Section 13-B A, we are of the view that read with Section 18-A, we are of the view that read with Section 18 B satisfies the the owner invoking Section 13-B satisfies the the owner invoking Section 13 he onus is ingredients of the said Section and the onus is ingredients of the said Section and t SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [26] on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as on Mukesh Kumar to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction under would disentitle summary eviction under would disentitle summary eviction under B, which, in our considered view, Section 13-B, which, in our considered view, B, which, in our considered view, Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” Mukesh Kumar failed to do.” 21. In view of In view of In view of the discussion made hereinabove and the discussion made hereinabove and the discussion made hereinabove and upon by the petitioner/ tenant been especially for the judgments relied upon by the petitioner/ tenant been upon by the petitioner/ tenant been especially in terms not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case; in terms not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides of the legal precedents referred to in the detailed discussion, besides 29.09.2014 even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated 29.09.2014 even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated even finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated about declining by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, about declining by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the present the prayer made by petitioner for grant of leave to contest the present the prayer made by petitioner for grant of leave to contest the prayer made by petitioner for grant of leave to contest Resultantly, the petitioner/ revision petition is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the petitioner/ revision petition is hereby dismissed. revision petition is hereby dismissed. tenant is is directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises in favour of the contesting premises in favour of the contesting respondents/ landlords as directed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. directed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. directed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. 22. profits, in the humble With respect to grant of mesne profits, in the humble With respect to grant of opinion of this Court, since the matter/ controversy in hand is akin opinion of this Court, since the matter/ controversy in hand is opinion of this Court, since the matter/ controversy in hand is akin to 2014, wherein this Court, vide order of even date, has CR No.8171-2014, wherein this Court, vide order of even date, has 2014, wherein this Court, vide order of even date, has CR No.8171 profits @ Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction assessed mesne profits @ Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction profits @ Rs.700 per sq. ft. from the date of eviction assessed order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh i.e. 29.09.2014 till ession of the demised the date of handing over of the vacant possession of the demised the date of handing over of the vacant poss the date of handing over of the vacant poss filed premises, therefore, the application bearing CM-2300-CII-2024 filed premises, therefore, the application bearing premises, therefore, the application bearing at the instance of respondents is hereby allowed and they are held at the instance of respondents is hereby allowed and they are held at the instance of respondents is hereby allowed and they are held at the instance of respondents is hereby allowed and they are held entitled to the same benefits/ mesne entitled to the same benefits/ as assessed in CR mesne profits as assessed in CR SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [27] No.8171- -2014. 23. lication(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand lication(s), if any, shall also stand
Arguments
alienated in favour of one Mr.V.K. Awasthy alienated in favour of one Mr.V.K. Awasthy alienated in favour of one Mr.V.K. Awasthy and his son and also to Ms.Harjit Kaur; and his son and also to Ms.Harjit Kaur; and his son and also to Ms.Harjit Kaur; etween 2000 to 2004; between 2000 to 2004; (b) Neither the other co owners of the building in Neither the other co-owners of the building in question were question were question were impleaded impleaded impleaded in in in the present the present the present eviction petition; nor their consent was ever eviction petition; nor their consent was ever eviction petition; nor their consent was ever obtained for the said purpose, especially when obtained for the said purpose, especially when obtained for the said purpose, especially when Harjit Kaur who happened to be one of the co- Harjit Kaur who happened to be one of the co Harjit Kaur who happened to be one of the co owner even filed an objecting to the ven filed an affidavit objecting to the filing of the present eviction petition against filing of the present eviction petition against filing of the present eviction petition against petitioner; SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [4] (c) Petitioner having purchased 1/18 Petitioner having purchased 1/18th share from share from Harjit Kaur and his son Karambir Singh, in the and his son Karambir Singh,in the building in question; tenancy came to an end building in question; tenancy came to an end building in question; tenancy came to an end eviction petition could have and as such no eviction petition could have and as such no especially when final been filed against them especially when final been filed against them decree of partition qua the said building was decree of partition qua the said building was decree of partition qua the said building was passed in favour of all concerned including passed in favour of all concerned including passed in favour of all concerned including petitioner No.1; petitioner No.1 Respondents recently created a fresh tenancy (d) Respondents recently created a fresh tenancy Respondents recently created a fresh tenancy ground floor of the regarding some portion of ground floor of the regarding some portion of building in question in favour of Harjit Singh building in question in favour of Harjit Singh building in question in favour of Harjit Singh after having withdrawn an eviction petition after having withdrawn an eviction petition after having withdrawn an eviction petition B of the 1949 Act filed under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act filed under Section 13 against him, besides renting out some portion against him, besides renting out some portion against him, besides renting out some portion of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala of top floor to Paramjit Singh and Saroj Bala cted which reflected cted that that that their need qua their need qua their need qua the the the premises premises premises in question was not genuine. in question was not genuine. in question was not genuine. Besides it, the respondents were well settled Besides it, the respondents were well settled Besides it, the respondents were well settled in England and in England and in England and running running running their business their business their business successfully and thus never intended to settle successfully and thus never intended to settle successfully and thus never intended to settle It was also pleaded that even an in India. It was also pleaded that even an It was also pleaded that even an tion filed against Harjit Singh eviction petition filed against Harjit Singh tion filed against Harjit Singh B of 1949 Ac was having invoked Section 13-B of 1949 Ac was having invoked withdrawn on 19.07.2012 and a fresh tenancy withdrawn on 19.07.2012 and a fresh tenancy withdrawn on 19.07.2012 and a fresh tenancy was created in his favour while increasing the was created in his favour while increasing the was created in his favour while increasing the rent. There was no relationship of landlord and (e) There was no relationship of landlord and There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the tenant between the parties and as such the tenant between the parties and as such the eviction petition by contesting respondents eviction petition by contesting respondents eviction petition by contesting respondents against petitioners was not maintainable. It against petitioners was not maintainable. It against petitioners was not maintainable. It SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [5] was submitted that Sh.S.S. Gill who was was submitted that Sh.S.S. Gill who was was submitted that Sh.S.S. Gill who was predecessor of contesting respondents while predecessor of contesting respondents whi predecessor of contesting respondents whi 193 of appearing as PW2 in Rent Petition No.193 of appearing as PW2 in Rent Petition No. 1998 himself stated that the demised portion 1998 himself stated that the demised portion 1998 himself stated that the demised portion was rented out to the petitioner by another co- was rented out to the petitioner by another co was rented out to the petitioner by another co owner Karnail Singh and not by him. owner Karnail Singh and not by him. Other eviction petitions filed under Section 13 (f) Other eviction petitions filed under Section 13 Other eviction petitions filed under Section 13 dents of the 1949 Act by the contesting respondents of the 1949 Act by the contest against the petitioner qua the demised portion against the petitioner qua the demised portion against the petitioner qua the demised portion were pending adjudication as such were pending adjudication as such were pending adjudication as such the the the present eviction petition having present eviction petition having present eviction petition having invoked invoked invoked B of the 1949 Act for the same Section 13-B of the 1949 Act for the same B of the 1949 Act for the same cause was essential to grant leave to contest cause was essential to grant leave to contest cause was essential to grant leave to contest in favour of petitioner. in favour of petitioner. 5. A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to A detailed reply to the application seeking leave to contest was filed with the prayer for rejection of the same. contest was filed with the prayer for rejection of the same. contest was filed with the prayer for rejection of the same. 6. Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of 29.09.2014 rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of 29.09.2014 est followed by passing of an eviction order of even date leave to contest followed by passing of an eviction order of even date est followed by passing of an eviction order of even date leave to cont in terms of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act while directing in terms of Section 13 to vacate B of the 1949 Act while directing him to vacate the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision the demised premises within 02 months, hence the present revision petition. 7. the Impugning the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Impugning the order dated Divanshu Jain, learned Rent Controller, Sh. Divanshu Jain, learned Rent Controller, Sh. learned Counsel learned Counsel representing the petitioner(s) made the following arguments representing made the following arguments:- SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-8167- -2014 (O&M) [6] (i) petitions Earlier eviction petitions filed at filed at the the instance of instance of respondents against the petitioners while invoking Section the petitioners while invoking Section pending adjudication and that too 13 of the 1949 Act were pending adjudication and that too pending adjudication and that too need therein with one of the ground been of bona fide need therein with one of the ground been of
Decision
disposed of. disposed of. .2025 26.05.2025 sanjay ( HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document