O&M) Amarjit Kau it Kaur Gill through her LR and anoth another v. Shri Raguna agunath Mandir Society (Regd.) and a and another
Case Details
CR-950-202 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CR-950-2025 (O&M) Parminder S nder Singh Gill .…Petitioner 115 Versus Shri Raguna agunath Mandir Society (Regd.) ....Respondent 2. CR-951-2025 (O&M) Amarjit Kau it Kaur Gill through her LR and anoth another Versus Shri Raguna agunath Mandir Society (Regd.) and a and another .…Petitioners ....Respondents Date of Decision: 14.02.2025 Date o CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Divanshu Jain and Mr. Abh for the petitioner(s) (in both cas r. Abhinav Goel, Advocates th cases). cate Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate ent(s) (in both cases). for the Caveator-respondent(s) ( NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. By this common order the sion two aforementioned revision petitions are ns are being disposed as similar/comm /common questions of facts and law are involved volved between the same parties wi the ies with regard to eviction of the petitioner(s s) from 02 shops i.e. shop No. hop No. 6 (in CR-950-2025) and shop No. 5 (in CR (in CR-951-2025). The shops in ques nity. question are in the same vicinity. RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 2025 (O&M) -2- However, ver, separate impugned orders of ev ave of even date i.e. 27.01.2025 have been passed assed by the Appellate Authority, Lud Ludhiana, in both the cases. 2. Both the aforesaid revision pet the on petitions have been filed by the petitioner/ten ner/tenant under Section 15(5) of t ent ) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction A ction Act, 1949 (for short-‘the Act’), l , laying challenge to the orders dated 27.01 27.01.2025 (in both cases) passed llate passed by the learned Appellate Authority, L rity, Ludhiana, whereby the applicatio lication(s) filed by the petitioner(s) seeking perm g permission for bringing on record that record the subsequent events that happened du ned during the pendency of appeal b s of peal by inspecting the premises of Shri Raghun aghunath Mandir Society and to sub the to submit a report along with the detailed site d site plan and photographs regar tual regarding the actual and factual position exis issed. n existing at the spot, was dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that filed re that the respondent-Society filed two separate parate petitions dated 06.05.2015 (An 15 (Annexure P-1 in both petitions) under Sectio Section 13 of the Act, for eviction the iction of the petitioner(s) from the demised pre ed premises i.e. Shop No. 6 (in CR- (in -950-2025) and Shop No. 5 (in CR-951-202 2025). The ciety respondent-Society sought eviction of the the petitioner(s) ner(s) on the grounds of non-paymen ayment of rent, material alteration, and persona ersonal necessity. Vide two separa i.e. separate orders of even date i.e. 12.02.2019 2019 (Annexure P-5, in both cases) ent cases) passed by the learned Rent Controller, L ller, Ludhiana, the petitioner(s) were rom ere given 03 months time from the date of r te of receipt of copy of the order(s) sion to hand over vacant possession of the demis demised premises i.e. Shop No. 6 (in No. . 6 (in CR-950-2025) and Shop No. 5 (in CR-95 951-2025) to the respondent-Socie tion Society. It is pertinent to mention RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 2025 (O&M) -3- here that the hat the date of order has wrongly been in ly been mentioned as 12.02.2018 in the index in ex in both the revision petitions. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner eals itioner(s) filed two separate appeals of even date n date i.e. 25.03.2019 (Annexure P the ure P-6, in both cases) before the learned App d Appellate Authority, Ludhiana. D the ana. During the pendency of the appeal, the p the petitioner(s) filed the present ap 024 ent application(s) dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P xure P-7, in both cases) for bringin uent bringing on record the subsequent events that a that are stated to be have happened the ppened during the pendency of the appeal(s); which applications were dismiss llate ismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, L rity, Ludhiana, vide order(s) impugned ugned herein. 5. Learned counsel for the petitio ter petitioner(s) (in both cases), inter alia, submit ubmit that during the pendency of t y of the appeal(s), the respondent- Society had y had carried out extensive reno and renovation, re-construction and additional c nal construction in the Mandir C dir Complex of Shri Raghunath. Accordingly ly, by filing the application(s) (An er(s) (s) (Annexure P-6), the petitioner(s) have prayed rayed for appointment of a building e long ding expert to submit a report along with detailed etailed site plan and photographs reg tual hs regarding the actual and factual position at t at the spot as on date. It is conten tion contended that the said information was necessa ecessary for the proper adjudication the ation of the appeal(s) filed by the petitioner(s) ner(s). As such, dismissal of the pe vide the petitioners’ application(s) vide impugned or ned orders dated 27.01.2025 is unsusta nsustainable. 6. Learned counsel for iety, the Caveator-respondent-Society, the vehemently ently opposes the prayer made on b and on behalf of the petitioner(s) and refers to the to the rent petition (Annexure P-1, in at it 1, in both cases) to submit that it RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 2025 (O&M) -4- has been spe specifically pleaded therein that th the respondent-Society urgently requires the es the shops in question/demised pr the sed premises for expansion of the Hall. Admit Admittedly, the rent petitions of th tand of the respondent–Society stand allowed by t d by the Rent Controller. As such, the eing ch, the present renovations are being undertaken aken. It is submitted that the renovati the novation is being carried out by the respondent dent Society in accordance with law hing th law. It is contended that nothing illegal is bei is being done by the respondent-Soci are Society. It is denied that there are any subsequ bsequent events; the respondent-Socie tion Society requires shops in question for expansio pansion; and it is for this reason that a ave that all the shops No. 5 to 11 have been got vac ot vacated as the respondent-Society and ociety is not in a position to expand the Hall if, th ll if, the shops are not vacated. 7. It is further submitted that the p both t the present application(s) (in both cases) are m are misuse of the process of law the f law and has been filed by the petitioner(s) ner(s) only to delay the proceedings nted dings in the appeal(s). It is pointed out that the a at the appeal(s) filed by the petitioner( ding tioner(s) (in both cases) are pending since March March, 2019. Accordingly, dismissa n is ismissal of the present petition is for. prayed for. 8. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for either of the of the parties. 9. I have heard learned counsel fo sel for the parties and perused the case file in g ile in great detail. 10. The facts in brief have already ve. I lready been noticed here-in-above. I find no meri o merit in the submissions made on b As e on behalf of the petitioner(s). As such, nothing nothing illegal is being done by the res of the respondent society. A perusal of RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 2025 (O&M) -5- the rent pet nt petition (Annexure P-1, in both the both cases), shows that it is the categorically rically pleaded case of the responden reof pondent-Society in para 11 thereof that: ‘for th r the extension/expansion of the H of he Hall so that more number of people coul could be accommodated. The Ha ve Hall at present does not have independent dent access from the main Ferozep All ozepur, G.T. road, Ludhiana. All the persons ons who have to attend the Kriya a ter ya and Satsang etc. have to enter the Hall afte l after crossing the Deodi of the Ma ps e Mandir. The space of the shops no. 5 to 11 s 11 shall be utilized for the expansio nt nsion of the Hall and independent access to the o the Hall from the main Ferozepur in epur Road. The general public in large shall b all be benefited from this. The shop to shops no. 5 to 11 are adjacent to the hall roo room and is most suitable space f he ace for extension of Hall. All the shops are b re bona fide required by the pet te petitioner society and separate ejectment pe nt petitions have been filed agains his ainst other tenants also on this ground’. Th Thus, the clear purpose of the re king the respondent-Society for seeking ejectment of ent of the petitioner(s) from the demi n of e demised shops is for extension of Hall. Admit Admittedly, vide order dated 12.02.2 both 2.02.2019 (Annexure P-5, in both cases) passe passed by the learned Rent Controlle er(s) ntroller, Ludhiana, the petitioner(s) had been di een directed to be ejected from the s in m the demised premises/shops in question i.e. on i.e. Shop No. 6 (in CR-950-2025) 2025) and Shop No. 5 (in CR-951- 2025), on th , on the ground that the demised pre ther ed premises/shops along with other shops No. 7 No. 7 to 11 were required by the resp sion he respondent-Society for extension and expansi xpansion of the Hall. Pursuant ther thereto, the present renovation/ expansion/ex extensions being carried out by ut by the respondent-Society. The same cannot cannot be termed to be a subsequent er(s) quent event. Even the petitioner(s) RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-950-202 2025 (O&M) -6- can have no ave no grievance to the same. As s the As such, no report regarding the construction uction is required. The report procur the procured by the petitioner(s) to the effect that th that the construction is not as per plan erits er plan has no bearing on the merits of the case. case. It is not for the petitioner(s) to iety r(s) to direct the respondent-Society in what man at manner to carry out the said extens that extension. Therefore, it is clear that the present a esent application(s) (Annexure P-7, in filed 7, in both cases) have been filed by the petitio petitioner(s) just to delay the proceedi oceedings in the appeal(s). 11.
Decision
In view of the above, both the re h the revision petitions bearing CR Nos. 950 and 50 and 951-2025 are dismissed. 12. Pending application(s) if any a any also stand(s) disposed of (in ases). both cases) 13. A photocopy of this order be er be placed on the file of other connected ca cted case. 2025 14.02.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.17 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.