Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav Kumar Monga vs Shashi Chaudhary on 24 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055970
2024:PHHC:055970
CR-2450-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
126 CR-2450-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
Gaurav Kumar Monga ...Petitioner.
Versus
Shashi Chaudhary ....Respondent.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged order dated 29.02.2024 passed by Learned Rent Controller,
Moga, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 rule 11
CPC for rejection of the petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban rent
Restriction Act, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present revision
petition are that the earlier respondent Shashi Chaudhary filed petition
under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for
short,'the Act') for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute
alleging that the petitioner took the premises on rent from her on 07.12.2013
and he has he had not paid the rent since 2018 onwards. It was further
alleged that she was in bonafide necessity of the shop in dispute as she was
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055970
2024:PHHC:055970
CR-2450-2024 (O&M) - 2-
not having any other shop in the area of Moga. The said petition was
dismissed by the Rent Controller, Moga vide judgment dated 09.11.2022.
Respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Moga. The said
appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 14.07.2023 passed by the
Appellate Authority, Moga. The petitioner/ tenant filed Civil Revision
Petition No.6137 of 2013 before this Court and vide order dated 13.10.2023
of this Court, the notice of motion in the said revision petition was issued
and in the meantime execution proceedings before the Executing Court were
stayed.
3. During pendency of the said petition respondent/ landlady
again filed another petition under Section 13 of the Act. The petitioner filed
an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the said petition
under Section 13 of the Act filed by respondent/ landlady alleging that
earlier also petition titled as 'Shashi Chaudhary Vs. Gaurav Kumar Monga'
had been filed by the respondent/ landlady against the petitioner on the
same cause of action which had been dismissed by the Rent Controller,
Moga on 09.11.2022. As the respondent/ landlady has filed a similar
petitioner on the same cause of action, so the said petition is not
maintainable. Reply to the said application was filed by the respondent/
landlady. Thereafter, the said application was dismissed vide impugned
order dated 29.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing the present revision
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055970
2024:PHHC:055970
CR-2450-2024 (O&M) - 3-
the impugned order is wrong, illegal, unjust and is liable to be set aside. The
Rent Controller has not considered the fact that earlier also respondent/
landlady had filed the rent petition on the same cause of action which had
been decided by the trial Court and now the Civil Revision No.6137-2023
arising out of the said earlier petition is pending before this Court. The
present petition filed on the same cause of action is not maintainable as per
law and the respondent/ landlady has wrongly stated the facts while
mentioning in para No.8 of the petition that no ejectment petition had been
previously decided by the Court on the same grounds.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone
through the relevant record.
6. The law in this context is well settled that while considering an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is only to look into the
averments as made in the plaint and at that stage, the stand taken in the
written statement is not to be seen.
7. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that in para No.6 of
the said order, it has been specifically mentioned that counsel for the
petitioner suffered a statement to the effect that he withdraws the ground of
personal necessity from the petition, as eviction on the ground of personal
necessity has already been allowed by the Court of Additional District
Judge, Moga, vide order dated 14.07.2023 and petition be heard on the
ground of arrears of rent as mentioned in para No.5(i) of petition and rent be
assessed. So, it has been rightly observed by the trial Court that now the
present petition is only on the ground of non-payment of rent. Copy of the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055970
2024:PHHC:055970
CR-2450-2024 (O&M) - 4-
earlier petition has been placed on record, which shows that it has been filed
on the ground of arrears of rent since July, 2018 and the bonafide necessary.
But the present eviction petition has been filed on the ground of arrears of
rent since October, 2019 and the ground of the bonafide necessity has been
given up. It has been rightly taken note that the revision petitioner is silent
qua payment of rent to the landlady in the application filed under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC and as such the cause of action has arisen to the landlady to
file the ejectment/ eviction petition against the petitioner/ tenant for non-
payment of rent.
8. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order, no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands
dismissed.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
24.04.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
4 of 4
