Garg Enterprises vs State Of Punjab & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5946 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Garg Enterprises vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 December, 2025

201-2       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
                         ****
                                  CR-4281-2005
                                  Date of Decision: 10.12.2025

M/s Neelam Rubber Works
                                                               ...Petitioner
                             Versus
Krishan Kuman Anand and Others
                                                             ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:-   Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with
            Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
            for respondents No.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).

            ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant revision petition under Section

15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short '1949

Act') is seeking setting aside of order dated 11.03.2005 passed by

Appellate Authority, Jalandhar.

2. The petitioner- M/s Neelam Rubber Works is a partnership

firm. It is in possession of a premises bearing No.NK-12/B/B/III-627,

Kotwali Bazar, Jalandhar. The said premises is not owned by it. It is using

said premises as tenant. The premises is undisputedly owned by

respondent. As per pleadings and evidence on record, the premises in

question was let out to petitioners in 1955. There was no written rent

agreement. The parties fixed rent @ Rs.100/- per month. The petitioner

regularly discharged its liability of rent. The respondent filed petition

under Section 13 of 1949 Act seeking ejectment of demised premises.

The Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide order dated 07.09.2001 allowed

1 of 9

owner's petition and ordered the tenant to vacate the premises. The

petition was allowed on the ground that tenant has carried out alteration

in the premises. The petitioner-tenant preferred appeal which came up for

consideration before Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. The Appellate

Authority vide judgment dated 11.03.2005 dismissed appeal of the

petitioner-tenant.

3. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits

that impugned order is bad on two counts namely (i) Municipal

Corporation, Jalandhar has already withdrawn penalty notice, thus, Rent

Controller, Jalandhar or Appellate Authority could not rely upon said

evidence; (ii) the respondent has not brought on record any evidence

disclosing the nature of alteration as well as date on which alteration was

made. There was oral agreement, thus, there was no description of the

construction in the premises. The authorities have wrongly relied upon

statement of owner as well as other witnesses. His argument is supported

with reply filed by Municipal Corporation in CWP No.1392 of 2008.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

there are concurrent findings of Authorities constituted under 1949 Act.

This Court is not supposed to reappreciate evidence on record. There is

no material irregularity. The Authorities have duly examined officials of

Municipal Corporation. The petitioner having custody of demised

premises since 1955 and respondents have been deprived from their

property despite favourable orders passed by authorities.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record with their able assistance.

2 of 9

6. The respondent concededly filed ejection petition before

Rent Controller, Jalandhar which was allowed on the basis of evidence on

record. The Rent Controller, Jalandhar examined oral as well as

documentary evidence on record and thereafter concluded that petition

deserves to be allowed. The petitioner-tenant preferred appeal before

Appellate Authority which again examined evidence on record and

concluded that appeal is liable to be dismissed. The findings recorded by

Appellate Authority are reproduced as below:

"13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence on record. The present appeal has been argued before me only on the ground of material addition and alteration in the property in dispute made by the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the premises in dispute were let out by the father of the applicant in favour of respondents long time back. As per the version of respondents, they are tenant in the premises in dispute since 1955. As per statement of Krishan Kumar Anand AW.1, the applicant, the premises in dispute were let out in the year 1974. However, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed. It is also matter of record that respondents are tenants in the premises in dispute since long @ Rs.100/- per month. As per the version of applicant, the respondents were let out one shed constructed with corrugated sheets and Nanakshahi bricks, situated on the northern side and the front portion was lying vacant alongwith boundary wall and a gate. On 18.3.1990 when he visited the premises in dispute to collect the rent, he was shocked to see the construction of three rooms, stair case and Parchatti in the vacant portion of the premises in dispute. It is alleged that these rooms were constructed with cement, concrete, bricks and the roof was of RCC lintel. In this way, they have made material addition and alteration in the premises in dispute

3 of 9

without his consent. They have materially impaired the value and utility of the property. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that they have not made any addition or alteration in the premises in dispute. The construction in the property in dispute already existed when it was taken on rent by them. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that now on the spot there is a shed, three rooms with Pacca construction and lintel, stair case and a Parchatti and now there is no vacant land in the premises in dispute. The present court is to determine whether the respondents have actually made addition and alteration in the demised property or it was already existed since the inception of tenancy. It is the applicant/landlord who has taken the plea of addition and alteration in the premises in dispute, therefore, the onus is heavily upon the applicant to establish this fact. In order to prove these facts, Krishan Kumar Anand AW.1 has stepped into the witness box to establish the plea taken by him. Sudha AW.2 has also stepped into the witness box who has given her statement that she saw Vinod Kumar raising construction in November 1989 and when she again visited her own property on 24.12.1989, she saw Vinod Kumar present there and lintel was being laid in the said construction raised in the vacant portion. Kartara Ram AW.3 the retired Butlding Inspector has also stepped into the witness box , who has proved the notice dated 21.9.1989 EX.AW.4/1 issued for raising illegal construction of shed 40'x20' upto the height of 5 feet. Another notice dated 24.10.1989 is EX.AW.4/3 and other final notice dated 6.3.1990 is EX.AW.4/5.

In order to rebut this evidence, Vinod Kumar RW. 9 has stepped into the witness box to confirm the plea taken in the written reply. He has also examined Kashmiri Lal RW.7 and P.L Kapur RW.8 to establish that the construction on the spot is the same as it was at the time of inception of tenancy. He has also placed on record one certified copy of LA opinion alongwith order EX.R.3/B

4 of 9

dated 20.7.1994, by examining Rakesh Kumar RW. 5. During the course of evidence, it has come on record that the original of this document is not there in the office record of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Only certified copy has been placed on record, which is not perse admissible. During the cross-examination of Rakesh Kumar RW.5, it has further come on record that no written application was moved in the office for supply of certified copy and this certified copy was prepared on verbal orders. There is no order of competent person for allowing the certified copy of the order EX.R.3/B. Keeping in view these facts to the order EX.R.3/B cannot be safely relied upon. There is another document i.e. record of assessment of house tax pertaining to the year 1976-77 EX.R.3/A, in which there is reference of one shed, one room and other measurement 25' x 12' but the same is not legible whether it is regarding vacant portion or regarding some construction. Only photocopy of this house tax assessment record has been produced. Even if for the sake of arguments, these dimentions are taken into consideration. It does not tally with the existing construction as alleged by M/s Neelam Rubber Works in their own suit for permanent injunction bearing Civil suit No.49 of 1998, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.4.1998, certified copy of the same is EX.AY. In view of this, there is no convincing evidence on the file to establish that the notices which are proved on record by Kartara Ram AW.3 were ever withdrawn by the order of Commissioner dated 20.7.1994.

In addition to this, there is another fact which further establishes that the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar were never withdrawn. In this case, the respondents initially filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing Civil Suit No.283 of 1990 instituted on 21.3.1990 and the same was withdrawn as the Hon'ble High Court gave a finding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the same was not

5 of 9

maintainable and in view of this observation of Hon'ble High Court, the suit was dismissed being not maintainable vide order dated 29.4.1998 EX.R.2 Thereafter, the appellants/respondents again filed appeal against the demolition order alongwith the application to condone the delay, filed on 18.3.1998 and that case bearing MCA No.93 of 2004 is still pending in this court. In case the demolition order was withdrawn by the orders of the Commissioner, then there was no reason for the appellants/ respondents to pursue that Misc. Civil Appeal. Keeping In view all these facts, it is clear that addition and alteration alleged by Krishan Kumar Anand AW.1 is further corroborated by strong corroborative piece of evidence i.e notices issued by the Municipal Corporation for raising unauthorised construction as well as notice for demolition duly proved on record by Kartara Ram AW.3. The version of applicant/respondent is also supported by the testimony of one independent witness Sudha AW.2. The evidence led by the respondents/appellants cannot be relied up-on safely. Therefore, the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of addition and alteration made by the tenant is fully justified. The plea taken by the applicant/respondent that the respondents have not examined any of the registered partner mentioned in the ejectment application does not hold any ground. The present ejectment application has been filed against M/s Neelam Rubber Works through ots partner. At the time of recording of statement of Anil Kumar RW.9, he was one of the registered partner of M/s Neelam Rubber Works. Therefore, in my opinion, his statement as a respondent, being one of the •partner of partnership concern can be looked into. In view of my above observations, the order passed by the Rent Controller for the ejectment of appellants/respondents on the ground of material addition and alteration in the premises in dispute is up held and the appeal preferred by the appellants/respondents is dismissed with costs. Memo of costs be prepared. Lower court file be

6 of 9

sent back and present appeal file be consigned to the Record Room."

7. The petitioner has preferred instant petition under Section

15(5) of 1949 Act. Scope of interference in exercise of revisionary

powers under Section 15(5) of 1949 Act is narrow and very limited.

8. The issue pertaining to exercise of revisional jurisdiction of

the High Court while hearing revision petition arising out of eviction

matter has been settled by the Constitution Bench in 'Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Dilbahar Singh', (2014) 9 SCC

78. The Court has held:

"43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity,

7 of 9

correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity."

9. The petitioner is primarily claiming that Authorities below

have not properly appreciated evidence on record. It is further claiming

that notice issued by Municipal Corporation was subsequently

withdrawn, thus, authorities have wrongly placed reliance upon said

evidence. The petitioner is relying upon reply filed by Municipal

Corporation in CWP No.1392 of 2008.

10. From the perusal of orders passed by Rent Controller,

Jalandhar as well as Appellate Authority, it is quite evident that both the

Authorities have recorded concurrent findings. The petitioner is claiming

that no alteration in the demised premises was carried out. Whether

petitioner made alteration in the rented premises or not is a pure question

of fact. Both the authorities below have duly examined documentary as

well as oral evidence on record and concluded that there was material

alteration in the rented premises, thus, petitioner was liable to vacate the

premises.

11. No question of law is involved. There seems no glaring

infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference. The petitioner

is occupying subjected premises since 1955. The respondent-owner filed

petition seeking ejectment in 1990. A period of more than three decades

8 of 9

has passed away still owner has not received possession of the premises.

The respondent despite being owner of the premises is deprived from his

right of property. Original owner has passed away and his legal heirs are

fighting for their property. Action of petitioner has virtually deprived the

owner from his property.

12. In the wake of aforesaid discussion and findings, the instant

revision petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

                                                       (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                            JUDGE
10.12.2025
Prince Chawla

                      Whether Speaking/reasoned     Yes/No

                      Whether Reportable            Yes/No




                                           9 of 9