Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Pal (Since Deceased) Thru ... vs Krishan Chand Kohli on 31 March, 2022
111-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CR-4236-2018 (O&M)
Dharam Pal (since deceased) through his L.Rs
....Petitioner
Versus
Krishan Chand Kohli alias Kishan Chand
..Respondents
2.CR-4239-2018 (O&M)
Girdhari Lal (since deceased) through his L.R
....Petitioner
Versus
Krishan Chand Kohli alias Kishan Chand
..Respondents
3.CR-4393-2018 (O&M)
M/s Chaman Lal Pawan Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
Krishan Chand Kohli alias Kishan Chand
..Respondents
4.CR-4906-2018 (O&M)
Suresh Kumar (since deceased) through his L.Rs
....Petitioner
Versus
Krishan Chand Kohli alias Kishan Chand
..Respondents
Date of decision: 31.03.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma-1, Advocate for the petitioner
in CR-4236-2018 and CR-4239-2018
Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner
in CR-4393-2018
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
in CR-4906-2018
1 of 3
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent
in CR-4236-2018 and CR-4239-2018
Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the respondent
in CR-4393-2018 and CR-4906-2018
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
By this order, four revision petitions i.e CR-4236, 4239,
4393 and 4906 of 2018 shall stand disposed of.
These four revision petitions filed by the separate tenants of
a common landlord have come up for final disposal. The Rent
Controller has ordered ejectment on the ground of bona fide necessity of
the landlord. The Appellate Authority has affirmed the findings of fact.
Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the judgments passed by the courts
below. Learned counsel representing the petitioner (in CR-4236-2018
and CR-4239-2018) contends that the landlord has failed to prove that
his requirement is bona fide. He further submits that the landlord is
guilty of concealment of material facts from the court. Learned counsel
representing the remaining petitioners in other two revision petitions
have adopted the argument of the learned counsel representing the
petitioner in CR-4236-2018 and CR-4239-2018.
Per contra, learned counsel representing the landlord
contends that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and he has
been praying for ejectment for the last 12 years in order to start his
business of General Merchandise-cum-provisional store. He further
submits that there is no concealment of the fact as the other property of
the landlord is either agricultural or outside the town. He further submits
2 of 3
that the landlord has disclosed all the requirements as per law.
It has come in evidence that all these five shops are a part
of one integrated building. The landlord wishes to start his business of
general merchandise. He has stepped into the witness box and supported
his petitions. Despite searching questions by learned counsel
representing the tenants, they have failed to impeach his credibility. The
landlord has also examined Pritam Singh as well as Jatin Malhotra.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it would not be
appropriate to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent
Controller as well as the Appellate Authority with respect to bona fide
requirement.
As regards second argument, it may be noticed that the
landlord has fulfilled the requirements of East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act, 1949 while disclosing his other properties.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh 2014 (9) SCC 78, has held that the scope
of revisional jurisdiction is narrow and the High Court while exercising
the revisional jurisdiction is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence.
In view of the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made
out.
Hence, all the revision petitions are dismissed.
31.03.2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
