Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Joginder Pal & Bros & Ors vs Dharamsala Dharmarth Sanstha & Ors on 24 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009252
CR-2882 of 2017 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:009252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-2882 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Order:24.01.2024
M/s Joginder Pal Bros. through Sh. Joginder Pal
(deceased) through LRs
.Petitioner
Versus
Dharamsala Dharmarth Sanstha and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. In this revision petition, the correctness of the concurrent orders
of tenant's eviction passed by the rent controller which in appeal has been
affirmed by the appellate authority is assailed. Both the authorities have
ordered petitioner's eviction on the ground that he has sub-let the second
shop to Sh. Roshan Lal and parted exclusive possession.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed
3. Dharamsala Dharmarth Sanstha filed a petition under Section
13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of
the petitioner and Sh. Roshan Lal from two adjoining shops on the ground
that the tenant has defaulted in payment of the rent and respondent no.1 has
sub let the premises to respondent no.2 by parting with possession and the
second shop. The respondents filed joint reply. They denied the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009252
CR-2882 of 2017 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:009252
relationship of the landlord and tenant between the Sanstha and the
petitioner. It was also asserted that both the shops are in exclusive
possession of Sh. Joginder Pal.
4. On appreciation of the evidence, both the courts came to
conclusion that the possession of the second shop has been handed over
exclusively to Sh. Roshan lal without written permission of the landlord.
5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring
to the rent note, submits that the property was rented out by the respondent-
Sanstha in favour of the firm M/s Joginder Pal & Brothers. He submits that
Sh. Roshan Lal is brother of Sh. Joginder Pal and he is not in exclusive
possession rather the possession is with the partnership firm.
7. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the petitioner.
8. As already noticed, while filing the written statement and
contesting the petition, the petitioner claimed that both the shops are in his
exclusive possession. It was also asserted that Sh. Roshan Lal is not in
possession of the second shop. It is evident that the petitioner is changing
his stand time and again. The scope of interference in the revision petition is
limited in view of the judgment passed by the Five Judge Bench in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh(2014) 9 SCC
78.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
10. Dismissed.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009252
CR-2882 of 2017 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:009252
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
January 24, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009252
3 of 3
