M/s APS International Pvt. Ltd. M/s APS International Pvt. Ltd v. M/s Harbir Automobiles M/s Harbir Automobiles
Case Details
(O&M) CR-6638-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6638-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 19.09.2025 Decided on : M/s APS International Pvt. Ltd. M/s APS International Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner VERSUS M/s Harbir Automobiles M/s Harbir Automobiles ....Respondent
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Ankur Bansal Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner , Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the landlord, M/s APS Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–landlord, M/s APS Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner International Private Limited, assailing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the International Private Limited, assailing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the International Private Limited, assailing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the International Private Limited, assailing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by the tional evidence was dismissed. petitioner for leading additional evidence was dismissed. petitioner for leading addi 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant, M/s Harbir filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant, M/s Harbir filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant, M/s Harbir filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant, M/s Harbir , Industrial Automobiles, from the tenanted premises forming part of Plot No. 181, Industrial Automobiles, from the tenanted premises forming part of Plot No. 181 Automobiles, from the tenanted premises forming part of Plot No. 181 payment of rent and Area, Phase I, Chandigarh. The grounds pleaded were non-payment of rent and Area, Phase I, Chandigarh. The grounds pleaded were non Area, Phase I, Chandigarh. The grounds pleaded were non bona fide personal necessity. It was specifically pleaded that the petitioner bona fide personal necessity. It was specifically pleaded that the petitioner bona fide personal necessity. It was specifically pleaded that the petitioner bona fide personal necessity. It was specifically pleaded that the petitioner company required the demised premises for constructing a warehouse, as the company required the demised premises for constructing a warehouse, as the company required the demised premises for constructing a warehouse, as the company required the demised premises for constructing a warehouse, as the part of a single line of godowns separated by inner fabricated walls, premises form part of a single line of godowns separated by inner fabricated walls, part of a single line of godowns separated by inner fabricated walls, part of a single line of godowns separated by inner fabricated walls, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6638-2025 (O&M) -2- - and the petitioner intended to demolish the inner walls and construct a larger and the petitioner intended to demolish the inner walls and construct a larger and the petitioner intended to demolish the inner walls and construct a larger and the petitioner intended to demolish the inner walls and construct a larger warehouse for its business purposes. The respondent filed written statement warehouse for its business purposes. The respondent filed written statement warehouse for its business purposes. The respondent filed written statement warehouse for its business purposes. The respondent filed written statement equirement and pleaded that the petitioner already denying the alleged bona fide requirement and pleaded that the petitioner already equirement and pleaded that the petitioner already denying the alleged bona fide r had large buildings in the same plot which could serve its need. had large buildings in the same plot which could serve its need. had large buildings in the same plot which could serve its need. 3. Issues were framed and both sides led evidence. After conclusion of Issues were framed and both sides led evidence. After conclusion of Issues were framed and both sides led evidence. After conclusion of Issues were framed and both sides led evidence. After conclusion of additional the evidence of the parties, the petitioner moved an application for additional the evidence of the parties, the petitioner moved an application for the evidence of the parties, the petitioner moved an application for evidence, submitting that certain other premises owned by it in the same plot were evidence, submitting that certain other premises owned by it in the same plot were evidence, submitting that certain other premises owned by it in the same plot were evidence, submitting that certain other premises owned by it in the same plot were in a dilapidated condition and unfit for use, and in order to substantiate this fact it in a dilapidated condition and unfit for use, and in order to substantiate this fact it in a dilapidated condition and unfit for use, and in order to substantiate this fact it in a dilapidated condition and unfit for use, and in order to substantiate this fact it building sought to produce a technical inspection report prepared by an industrial building sought to produce a technical inspection report prepared by an industrial sought to produce a technical inspection report prepared by an industrial expert and to examine the said expert. The application was opposed by the expert and to examine the said expert. The application was opposed by the expert and to examine the said expert. The application was opposed by the expert and to examine the said expert. The application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the plea sought to be introduced was beyond the respondent on the ground that the plea sought to be introduced was beyond the respondent on the ground that the plea sought to be introduced was beyond the respondent on the ground that the plea sought to be introduced was beyond the pleadings, as nowhere in the ejectment petition had the petitioner pleaded that the pleadings, as nowhere in the ejectment petition had the petitioner pleaded that the pleadings, as nowhere in the ejectment petition had the petitioner pleaded that the pleadings, as nowhere in the ejectment petition had the petitioner pleaded that the premises were unsafe or unfit for use. alternate premises were unsafe or unfit for use. 4. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, dismissed the The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, dismissed the The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, dismissed the The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application holding that the ground now raised was an afterthought, being beyond application holding that the ground now raised was an afterthought, being beyond application holding that the ground now raised was an afterthought, being beyond application holding that the ground now raised was an afterthought, being beyond d to set up a new the pleadings, and that additional evidence cannot be permitted to set up a new the pleadings, and that additional evidence cannot be permitte the pleadings, and that additional evidence cannot be permitte case. It was further observed that the petitioner’s counsel had argued orally that the case. It was further observed that the petitioner’s counsel had argued orally that the case. It was further observed that the petitioner’s counsel had argued orally that the case. It was further observed that the petitioner’s counsel had argued orally that the demised premises had become unsafe, whereas in the application it was alleged demised premises had become unsafe, whereas in the application it was alleged demised premises had become unsafe, whereas in the application it was alleged demised premises had become unsafe, whereas in the application it was alleged ng a serious that the alternate premises were in dilapidated condition, thereby creating a serious that the alternate premises were in dilapidated condition, thereby creati that the alternate premises were in dilapidated condition, thereby creati contradiction in the stand of the petitioner. contradiction in the stand of the petitioner. 5. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has Rent Controller wrongly recorded that the petitioner argued that the learned Rent Controller wrongly recorded that the petitioner Rent Controller wrongly recorded that the petitioner argued that the d premises were unsafe, whereas wanted to lead evidence to show that the demised premises were unsafe, whereas wanted to lead evidence to show that the demise wanted to lead evidence to show that the demise in fact it was the alternate premises which were stated to be dilapidated. It is in fact it was the alternate premises which were stated to be dilapidated. It is in fact it was the alternate premises which were stated to be dilapidated. It is in fact it was the alternate premises which were stated to be dilapidated. It is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6638-2025 (O&M) -3- - submitted that this misreading vitiates the impugned order and that in any case the submitted that this misreading vitiates the impugned order and that in any case the submitted that this misreading vitiates the impugned order and that in any case the submitted that this misreading vitiates the impugned order and that in any case the f the issue of bona fide additional evidence was necessary for proper adjudication of the issue of bona fide additional evidence was necessary for proper adjudication o additional evidence was necessary for proper adjudication o requirement. 6. I have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the I have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the I have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the I have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the Rent Controller record. The core issue for determination is not whether the learned Rent Controller record. The core issue for determination is not whether the record. The core issue for determination is not whether the ses or the correctly noted whether the report pertained to the demised premises or the correctly noted whether the report pertained to the demised premi correctly noted whether the report pertained to the demised premi alternate premises, but whether such additional evidence was at all necessary or alternate premises, but whether such additional evidence was at all necessary or alternate premises, but whether such additional evidence was at all necessary or alternate premises, but whether such additional evidence was at all necessary or permissible. It is well settled that additional evidence can only be allowed to permissible. It is well settled that additional evidence can only be allowed to permissible. It is well settled that additional evidence can only be allowed to permissible. It is well settled that additional evidence can only be allowed to clarify or supplement existing pleadings and issues, and not to introduce an clarify or supplement existing pleadings and issues, and not to introduce an clarify or supplement existing pleadings and issues, and not to introduce an clarify or supplement existing pleadings and issues, and not to introduce an her new plea. In the present case, the ejectment petition does not contain altogether new plea. In the present case, the ejectment petition does not contain her new plea. In the present case, the ejectment petition does not contain her new plea. In the present case, the ejectment petition does not contain any averment that the alternate premises owned by the petitioner are in dilapidated any averment that the alternate premises owned by the petitioner are in dilapidated any averment that the alternate premises owned by the petitioner are in dilapidated any averment that the alternate premises owned by the petitioner are in dilapidated or unsafe condition. No issue was framed to that effect. The attempt now made to or unsafe condition. No issue was framed to that effect. The attempt now made to or unsafe condition. No issue was framed to that effect. The attempt now made to or unsafe condition. No issue was framed to that effect. The attempt now made to cal report and examine an expert on that point is clearly an effort produce a technical report and examine an expert on that point is clearly an effort cal report and examine an expert on that point is clearly an effort produce a techni to go beyond the pleadings and to set up a new case which was never projected in to go beyond the pleadings and to set up a new case which was never projected in to go beyond the pleadings and to set up a new case which was never projected in to go beyond the pleadings and to set up a new case which was never projected in the original petition. Merely because the learned the original petition. Merely because the described the learned Rent Controller mis-described the oes not render the dismissal illegal, for the substantive reason property in its order does not render the dismissal illegal, for the substantive reason oes not render the dismissal illegal, for the substantive reason property in its order d for rejecting the application is that the proposed evidence is beyond the scope of for rejecting the application is that the proposed evidence is beyond the scope of for rejecting the application is that the proposed evidence is beyond the scope of for rejecting the application is that the proposed evidence is beyond the scope of pleadings and issues. pleadings and issues. 7. Once the pleadings themselves do not raise the plea of the alternate Once the pleadings themselves do not raise the plea of the alternate Once the pleadings themselves do not raise the plea of the alternate Once the pleadings themselves do not raise the plea of the alternate g unsafe, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead evidence on that premises being unsafe, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead evidence on that g unsafe, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead evidence on that g unsafe, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead evidence on that aspect. Allowing such evidence would prejudice the respondent and upset the aspect. Allowing such evidence would prejudice the respondent and upset the aspect. Allowing such evidence would prejudice the respondent and upset the aspect. Allowing such evidence would prejudice the respondent and upset the Rent settled principle that no party can travel beyond its pleadings. The learned Rent settled principle that no party can travel beyond its pleadings. The settled principle that no party can travel beyond its pleadings. The ightly declined the prayer for additional evidence. Controller has, therefore, rightly declined the prayer for additional evidence. Controller has, therefore, r TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6638-2025 (O&M) -4- - 8.
Decision
In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference in the exercise of in the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 warranting interference in the exercise of warranting interference in the exercise of in the impugned order e 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil e 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil supervisory jurisdiction under Articl revision petition is accordingly dismissed. revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 September 19, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document