Raj Kumar Mahajan vs Ritesh Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1679 P&H

                                                                              103



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                         Civil Revision No. 7982 of 2016 (O&M)

                                                   Date of Decision: 15.03.2022


Raj Kumar Mahajan
                                                                 ... Petitioner(s)

                                         Versus

Ritesh Kumar
                                                               ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:     Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate
             for the petitioner(s).

             Mr. Akhil Kashyap, Advocate
             for Mr. Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate
             for the respondent.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. While assailing the concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by

the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner (tenant)

has filed the present revision petition. The petitioner's eviction has been

ordered on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord.

2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with

their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that in

the absence of evidence of a family settlement, the respondent (landlord) had

no locus standi to file the eviction petition. He submits that the landlord

claims that the property in question has fallen to his share, whereas the

various other shops have fallen to the share of Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar

and Raj Kumar (his brothers).

1 of 2

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, being tenant, has no locus

standi to assail the correctness of a family settlement i.e. inter se between

the family members. The tenant has not examined any other family member

to prove that such family settlement, as alleged, was not genuine.

5. The next argument of the learned counsel representing the

petitioner is with respect to the availability of other shop. It is noted here

that it is the case of the landlord, himself, that he has been allocated only the

shop in question. The landlord wants to run a bakery shop in that shop.

Both the Courts below, as noticed above, have already ordered eviction, after

finding that the requirement is genuine.

6. The scope of interference, in a revisional jurisdiction, is limited.

Reliance in this regard can be placed on a five Judges Bench judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v.

Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. Hence, no ground is made out to

interfere. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.

7. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge March 15, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2