09.12.2025 Sourabh Kumar Garg …..Pe44oner v. Gurudwara
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 126 CR-9064-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.12.2025 Sourabh Kumar Garg …..Pe44oner Vs. Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) **** This revision challenges the concurrent orders of the Courts
Legal Reasoning
below confirming ejectment passed under Sec(cid:26)on 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Evic(cid:26)on Act), 1973. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The landlord — Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, filed a pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on for ejectment of the tenant, Shri Sourabh Kumar Garg (pe(cid:4)(cid:4)oner herein), in respect of Shop No.7 on the ground of bona fide need (expansion of the langar/Satsang hall). The Rent Controller, Panipat, by order dated 21.02.2023 allowed the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 17.11.2025, thereby affirming the ejectment. 3. Assailing the above orders, Learned counsel for the tenant raises two principal conten(cid:26)ons: (i) the landlord has eight shops but has filed ejectment proceedings only in respect of five shops and not in respect of shops No.2, 3 and 4, which exposes the landlord’s mo(cid:26)ve as enhancing rent rather than genuine necessity; and (ii) the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on was ins(cid:26)tuted through Shri Gurdarshan Singh Khera, who, it is alleged, was not authorised to represent the landlord-society and, therefore, the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on was not NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.10 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9064-2025 (O&M) maintainable. -2- 4. I have carefully examined the paper book besides the site-plan (Annexure-P3) & the photograph (Annexure-P4) and the findings recorded by the Courts below. 5. The record discloses that the landlord-society produced its Registra(cid:26)on Cer(cid:26)ficate (Ex.P1) and a resolu(cid:26)on dated 10.06.2017 (Ex.P2) authorising Shri Gurdarshan Singh to act on behalf of the society. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have accepted these documents as proof of authority. A society duly registered and ac(cid:26)ng through an authorised representa(cid:26)ve may ins(cid:26)tute and prosecute proceedings. A resolu(cid:26)on which confers broad authority to represent the society in li(cid:26)ga(cid:26)on is sufficient unless the tenant demonstrates that the authority was fraudulently obtained or otherwise invalid. 6. No such evidence has been produced by the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner. The argument that the resolu(cid:26)on does not refer specifically to these ejectment pe(cid:26)(cid:26)ons is a technical objec(cid:26)on, which cannot prevail when the resolu(cid:26)on confers general authority to ins(cid:26)tute and conduct li(cid:26)ga(cid:26)on on behalf of the society and when the representa(cid:26)ve has in fact acted pursuant to that resolu(cid:26)on. 7. In this factual seAng, the Courts below have correctly held that the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on was maintainable and that the representa(cid:26)ve was duly authorised. The technicality urged by the tenant’s counsel does not vi(cid:26)ate the proceedings. 8. Coming to the plea of bona fide necessity, the tenant’s principal factual submission is that since ejectment proceedings were not filed in respect of shops No.2, 3 and 4, the landlord’s professed need to expand the langar/Satsang hall cannot be bona fide necessity. This argument assumes that a legi(cid:26)mate requirement to expand must always be NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.10 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9064-2025 (O&M) -3- pursued by proceeding against every con(cid:26)guous unit. However, said approach is neither a requirement of law nor compelled by logic. 9. The site-plan (Annexure-P3) & the photograph (Annexure-P4) show that the shops are located at the rear of the langar/Satsang hall and that the principal entry to the ground floor, basement and kitchen lies to the right side of shop No.8. Ejectment pe(cid:26)(cid:26)ons have been filed in respect of shops No.1 and 4 to 8 and ejectment orders have already been passed in regarding these shops. The appeals in respect of shops No.7 and 8 have already been dismissed. If the occupants of shops No.4 to 8 vacate, the landlord will be in a posi(cid:26)on to secure con(cid:26)guous space adequate for the projected expansion. 10. The Courts below have recorded evidence that the available accommoda(cid:26)on is inadequate to accommodate the sangat/followers for religious purposes and that expansion is required. Where the purpose is for bona fide religious and community use, urban constraints and the availability of specific con(cid:26)guous premises are material considera(cid:26)ons. It is well within the landlord’s preroga(cid:26)ve to determine how best to use its property for legi(cid:26)mate needs; and the tenants cannot dictate the manner of u(cid:26)lisa(cid:26)on so long as the landlord’s need is bona fide and proved on the evidence. 11. The fact that separate pe(cid:26)(cid:26)ons are not pressed in respect of every shop in the complex does not by itself demonstrate mala fides. The landlord may pursue evic(cid:26)on in stages as tenancies fall due or as space becomes necessary; prac(cid:26)cal, logis(cid:26)cal and financial considera(cid:26)ons may dictate the sequence of proceedings. In the absence of evidence of collusion, sham or pretext, the mere selec(cid:26)ve ini(cid:26)a(cid:26)on of proceedings is insufficient to displace the finding of bona fide necessity. 12. Further, the scope of this Court’s supervisory jurisdic(cid:26)on in NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.10 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9064-2025 (O&M) -4- revision is limited. Concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority are en(cid:26)tled to due weight, where they rest upon a considered apprecia(cid:26)on of documentary and oral evidence. 13. In the present case, the Courts below have examined the site- plan, photographs and the landlord’s evidence regarding inadequacy of space and requirement for expansion for langar/Satsang purposes. They have considered the authoriza(cid:26)on documents (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) and have recorded reasons for accep(cid:26)ng the landlord’s case. There is nothing on the record to show that the apprecia(cid:26)on of evidence was perverse, illegal, or vi(cid:26)ated by misreading of material evidence. 14. Conclusion : For the reasons recorded above, no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent orders of ejectment. The conten(cid:26)on as to want of authority of Shri Gurdarshan Singh is rejected. The conten(cid:26)on that the landlord’s plea is a device to enhance rent is not substan(cid:26)ated by the evidence. Resultantly, the revision pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on is dismissed.
Decision
All miscellaneous applica(cid:26)ons, if any, stand disposed of. Par(cid:26)es to bear their respec(cid:26)ve costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE December 09, 2025 Nee(cid:26)ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.10 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document