Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Kharaiti Lal Marwaha on 20 January, 2025
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4540-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 20, 2025
Vijay Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Kharati Lal Marwaha
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
During the pendency of the revision petition, filed by the
petitioner-tenant, to challenge two affirmatory orders of eviction, an
application bearing CM-17185-CII-2024 has been filed, to bring on record
the subsequent development of purchase of property by the petitioner, in
view of which, the eviction orders are liable to be set aside.
The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, Kharati Lal Marwaha-respondent had filed the petition for
seeking ejectment of Vijay Kumar from the property, as detailed in the
eviction petition and as reflected in the impugned order dated 25.09.2012.
He had filed the petition for seeking ejectment, on the ground of Vijay
Kumar, being in arrears of rent and also about the demised premises
required for his bonafide necessity.
After adducing of the evidence, vide impugned order dated
25.09.2012, the ejectment petition was allowed on the ground of bonafide
requirement of the landlord and Vijay Kumar was given a period of two
months to vacate the demised premises.
Feeling aggrieved, Vijay Kumar-petitioner(tenant) had filed an
appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28.05.2015.
Thereupon, Vijay Kumar had filed the revision petition in hand.
It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the
revision petition, Vijay Kumar-tenant (petitioner) had died and his LRs were
brought on record. Amended memo of parties is already on the record.
Also, it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the revision
petition only, it was brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the demised premises has since been purchased by the
sons of Vijay Kumar.
Thereupon, giving the details, the aforesaid application has been filed
to apprise the Court about the subsequent events and the sale deeds have
also been brought on record.
From the contents of the application, which are supported by
the copies of the sale deeds, it is evident that the demised premises, at first
instance, during the pendency of the revision petition, was sold vide sale
deed dated 13.05.2016 to one Madhvi Bedi (1/3rd share) and one Kudrat
Bedi (2/3rd share) and the boundaries of the shop, do tally with the
boundaries, as given in the eviction order. Subsequently, the demised
premises was purchased by the sons of petitioner-Vijay Kumar, vide sale
deed dated 20.12.2022.
As evident from the copy of sale deed, the demised premises was
purchased by Sandeep Arora and Rajiv Arora, who have been impleaded as
LRs of Vijay Kumar. Keeping in view the same, a submission has been
made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenancy rights have
merged into the ownership rights.
In view of the submission so made, which is supported by an
affidavit of Rajiv Arora s/o deceased-tenant namely, Vijay Kumar and also
considering the copies of sale deeds, coming on record, which sufficiently
tally with the demised premises, the tenancy rights have merged into
ownership rights.
Resultantly, keeping in view the events, whereby, two
subsequent sales have been effected and finally, the LRs of Vijay Kumar, as
such, have purchased the property, the present revision petition is allowed
and the ejectment orders dated 25.09.2012 and 28.05.2015 are hereby set
aside.
The pending civil misc. applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
January 20, 2025 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
