Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Lal vs Pardeep Kumar Gupta And Ors on 1 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029886
CR-44 of 2022 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:029886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-44 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Order:01.03.2024
Rattan Lal .Petitioner
Versus
Pardeep Kumar Gupta and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate
for respondent no.1.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. The petitioner herein is a tenant whose eviction has been
ordered by the Rent Controller which in appeal has been affirmed by the
Appellate Authority.
2. The petitioner's eviction has been ordered on the ground of the
bonafide necessity of the landlord. The correctness of the aforesaid order
has been challenged in this revision petition.
3. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted
as under:-
(1) The respondent is the owner of 139 square yard
commercial area pursuant to transfer deed executed in his
favour on 24.05.2010, which consists of many
commercial establishments.
(2) The respondent is already in possession of various shops
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029886
CR-44 of 2022 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:029886
and therefore, his necessity is not bonafide.
(3) The respondent has not filed the petition with clean hands
as he is already doing the business of trading in bann as
per the income tax record.
(4) Shop No.21 which belongs to the Public Works
Department is also in possession of the respondent.
(5) The respondent is owner of as many as 8 shops in Kiran
Market.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondents submits that 139 square yard area was transferred to the
respondent and his brother jointly. He submits that the respondent no.1 is
not in possession of any property as the shop depicted on the North of the
layout plan 'Ex.P3' is in possession of his cousins and the shop along with
the tenanted premises is in possession of his father. He further submits that
the petitioner already owns the adjoining shop. He further submits that no
evidence has been led to prove that the respondent is owner of 8 shops in the
Kiran Market. Shop No.21 was with Sh. Prem Sagar, the respondents father
who was in possession as a tenant.
6. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties
7. The scope of High Court's interference in rent revisions is
extremely limited in view of the judgment passed by five Judges Bench in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh(2014) 9 SCC
78. In any case, this court has evaluated the arguments of the learned
counsel representing the parties. The respondent has come up with a
specific assertion that he does not have any independent space to conduct
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029886
CR-44 of 2022 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:029886
his business of trading in Bann. He claims that the adjoining shop is in
possession of his father, who is also trading in the business of Bann. In
these circumstances, the onus heavily lies on the petitioner to prove that the
respondent independently is already in possession of some shop.
8. Both the courts have found that the petitioner has failed to
prove about the existence of 8 shops in the Kiran Market. The petitioner's
counsel admits that no document in this regard has been produced. Shop
No.21 was rented out to the respondents' father. This shop was given on
lease. There is no evidence that the aforesaid shop is in possession of the
respondent.
9. The learned counsel representing the petitioner further refers to
the income tax return to prove that the respondent is doing trading in Bann.
10. Be that as it may. The landlord is entitled to comfortably carry
on his business by seeking the eviction of a tenant. He cannot be forced to
carry on the business from anywhere else when he owns premises to satisfy
his requirements.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
12. Dismissed.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 01, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029886
3 of 3
