The High Court
Case Details
CR-6687-202 2025 (O&M) 1 [147] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CR-6687- Date of De -2025 (O&M) of Decision : 03.11.2025 Rahul and a l and another Rambabu a babu and others versus …Petitioners ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocat dvocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate nt No.1. ocate for the Caveator/respondent No.1 **** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] Tenant is in revision aggriev ggrieved of the orders passed by th by the authorities rities below, ordering eviction under S under Section 13 of the Haryana Urba Urban (Control of 973. trol of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. [2] Parties hereinafter are referred eferred to by their contractual status i. tatus i.e. petitioner a lord. ioner as tenant, respondent as landlord. [3] Landlord approached the Ren e Rent Controller seeking eviction o ction of the tenant f enant from demised premises on the g n the ground that he has proved to be to be a bad tenant tenant as he failed to pay rent regula regularly and is in arrears of rent. Th . The other groun ground on which the eviction was so was sought was that the landlord need rd needs premises to ises to settle his son. The landlord dlord has three sons. All of them hem are married and and have families. Two sons of t ns of the landlord are well settled. Th ed. The third son son Sanjay Kumar is unemployed loyed. He has no suitable/sufficie ufficient accommoda mmodation available with him to carry carry business. The landlord require requires RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.19 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the demised emised shop for establishing business siness for his third son, Sanjay Kuma Kumar, 2 CR-6687-202 2025 (O&M) who wants wants to start a cloth business. [4] The tenant contested the evict eviction petition, denying that the re the rent is not being t being paid regularly. Rather, it was c t was claimed that it is the landlord wh ord who stopped acc ed accepting the rent for last 03 years years. It was denied that the son of th n of the landlord, Sanjay Kumar, is unemployed loyed and or has no other suitable o table or sufficient a cient accommodation to start business usiness. Rather it was pleaded that th that the landlord is ord is a man of resources. He belon belongs to a rich and wealthy famil family, having num numerous commercial establishmen ishments, shops, showrooms etc. whe where his son can can carry business. [5] Eviction petition was put to tri t to trial by the Rent Controller, framin framing following i wing issues:- “1. Whether the responden dent is liable to be evicted from th m the demised premises on the n the ground of non payment of arre arrear of rent? OPP 2. Whether the responden dent is liable to be evicted from th m the demised premises on on the ground that the demise mised premises is required by d by the petitioner for personal an l and OPP banafide necessity? OPP 3. Whether petition filed by ed by petitioner is not maintainable ble in PR its present form? OPR 4. Whether petitioner has has no cause of action and loc locus standi to file the present sent petition? OPR 5. Relief. ” [6] Provisional rent was paid dur id during the pendency of the evictio eviction petition as ion as ordered by the Rent Controller. of non- roller. Accordingly, the ground of non payment o ent of rent ceased to exist in term in terms of the proviso appended nded to ision. provision. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.19 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6687-202 2025 (O&M) 3 [7] The tenant was ordered to be to be evicted by the Rent Controlle ntroller, holding tha ing that the unemployment of the so the son of the landlord stands prove proved. Thus, his n , his need being bona fide, the landlord andlord is entitled to get vacant physic physical possession ession of the demised premises. [8] Dissatisfied with the order pas er passed by the Rent Controller, tena r, tenant preferred a rred appeal. Before the Appellate Co ate Court, tenant filed application und n under Order XLI XLI Rule 27 CPC to lead additional tional evidence to the effect that the so t the son of the land e landlord qua whom the landlord cla ord claims bona fide need has started tarted a business by ess by the name of Sanjay Garments ments from Shop No.6, near ASD Hig D High School, Na ol, Narnaul. It was further claimed th med that a business run under the nam he name of R.R. Sw R. Sweets and Restaurant and R.R. Sw .R. Sweets and Bakery is also being ru eing run by Sanjay ay Aggarwal from a huge building uilding, constructed over area of mo more than 1000 1000 sq. yards. The Appellate ellate Authority dismissed the appe appeal preferred b d by the tenant and the application ication under Order XLI Rule 27 CP 27 CPC maintaining taining the order of the Rent Controlle ntroller observing as under:- “20. After hearing learned cou
Facts
counsel for both the parties, I am of t of the considered opinion that the said a id applications are beyond the scope ope of order 41 rule 27 CPC. Even if the
Legal Reasoning
an h of this Court in Moti Ram3 had an occasion to consider the extent o igh nt of revisional power of the High Court under Section 15(5) of ent of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949) w urt 49) which reads: … The High Court may, at any time, on the application its ation of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine t der ine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken und of under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or ality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such or ay h order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.” Having regard to this the this provision, the Court noted the revisional power of the High Court ourt in the following words: “…the revisional power urt wer conferred upon the High Court under Section 15(5) is wider than of han that conferred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Und urt Under Section 15(5) the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the le der e legality or propriety of the order under revision and that would clea the clearly justify the examination of the propriety or the legality of the findi finding made by the authorities...” [14]
Arguments
the contention of the tenant is accept cepted that the son of the landlord is ga s gainfully employed or already havin having commercial interest in other ventur ntures, then also it would not dis-enti entitle the landlord from seeking eviction tion of the demised shop as the landlo ndlord is the best judge of his requirement ent. It is for the landlord to decide wh e what would be the most appropriate pla place for him or for his son to start t art the commercial ventures and tenant can t cannot dictate terms to him.” Xxxx xxxx xxxx [9] Mr. Sharma, counsel for the t r the tenant has drawn attention of th of this Court to th t to the application filed under Order Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and the rep he reply RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.19 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document thereto. H to. He submits that it was brought o ught on record by the application file on filed CR-6687-202 2025 (O&M) 4 seeking per ing permission to lead additional evid al evidence that Sanjay Aggarwal is n al is not only runnin running shop under the name of San of Sanjay Garments but is also runnin running business of ess of R.R. Sweets and Restaurant a rant and R.R. Sweets and Bakery. H ery. He submits tha its that though the application was as responded to but the avermen erments made in the in the reply are patently false, which which show the conduct of the landlor andlord. It disentitle entitles him from pleading any bona f na fide. He refers to the testimony o mony of the landlo landlord, wherein he admitted tha d that his three sons are workin working independen endently and are not dependent upon upon him. He further submits that th that the said fact ha fact has also been admitted by Sanjay anjay Aggarwal in his statement befo t before the Rent Co ent Controller while he appeared as PW d as PW4. [10] Per contra, Mr. Gupta, couns counsel for respondent No.1, submi submits that even even if the applications filed by the y the tenant under Order XLI Rule 2 Rule 27 CPC is allo allowed and the evidence is allowe allowed to come on record, the sam he same inevitably s tably shows that the GST number w ber with respect to the business in th s in the name of Sa of Sanjay Garments was applied on ed on 12.01.2022 only after the tena e tenant was order ordered to be evicted on 18.09.2018 9.2018. Once, it was realized that th that the appeal pref al preferred by the tenant is not lik kely to be decided within the ye the year 2022, the , the GST registration was surrende rrendered on 30.04.2022. He furth further submits tha its that it is matter of record that R. hat R.R. Sweets and Bakery is not th not the venture ow re owned by Sanjay Aggarwal. The . The eviction petition was filed in th d in the year 2016. 2016. The same continued till the yea the year 2018 before the Rent Controll ontroller and thereaf ereafter was pending before the Appe e Appellate Authority till 2025. Durin During all these ye ese years, son of the landlord was no was not expected to sit idle. He has has a family to ly to feed. In view therefore, he e, he was assisting his father in th in the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.19 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document partnership ership business run under the name name and style of R.R. Sweets an ets and CR-6687-202 2025 (O&M) 5 Bakery. ry. He submits that right from the om the inception, the bona fide nee need pleaded by ed by the landlord is that his son S son Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal wants ants to start an ind independent business. Thus, his jo his joining business of the father wou ould not cut any ut any ice in favour of the tenant. [11] Having heard learned counsel unsel for the parties and after careful arefully perusing re sing records of the case, this Court is o is of the opinion that the rights of th ts of the parties get es get crystallized on the date of fili of filing of the petition. There is n re is no evidence on nce on record to show that on the date he date of filing of the eviction petitio petition, Sanjay Kum ay Kumar Aggarwal was running any i g any independent business. [12] Even if application under Or er Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is allowe allowed and the ev the evidence sought to be produced duced by way of additional evidenc vidence invoking O king Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is permi permitted to come on record, the sam he same can only pr nly prove the subsequent events. Reg egistration under GST Act has bee as been explained. ined. Registration obtained on 1 on 12.01.2022 was surrendered o ered on 30.04.2022 .2022. The issue regarding R.R. S R.R. Sweets and Bakery, there is n e is no evidence o nce on record that the same busines usiness is being run independently b ently by Sanjay Agg ay Aggarwal. Rather the evidence i ence is that he was only assisting h ting his father in the r in the said venture. [13] Keeping in view the pure fi ure findings of facts recorded by th by the authorities rities below, this Court does not fin not find any reason to interfere in th e in the order passe r passed by the Courts below exercisi xercising revisional jurisdiction. Scop Scope of revision vision under Section 15(5) of the Haryana Rent Act has been we en well explained ined by 05 Judges Bench in ‘Hindus ndustan Petroleum Corporation Lt n Ltd. versus Dilb Dilbahar Singh, 2014(9) SCC 78, , observing as under:- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.19 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “9. The scope of revisional ent nal jurisdiction under various Rent CR-6687-202 2025 (O&M) 6 Control Acts has fallen for conside his sideration in many cases before this Court. One of the earlier decisions s is sions in the long line of such cases is Moti Ram3. The 3-Judge Bench of
Decision
In view of the above, findings ndings no merits in the present revisio revision petition, the ion, the same is ordered to be dismisse missed. [15] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands disposed of ed off. .2025 03.11.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.19 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document