Punjab-Haryana High Court
Firm Brij Mohan Mehra vs Inderjit Puri & Others on 17 January, 2025
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on 28th of October, 2024
Pronounced on 17th of January, 2025
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M)
Firm Brij Mohan Mehra ....Petitioner
Versus
Shri Inderjit Puri and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Berjeshwar Singh Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate and
Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate
for the respondents.
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Tenant is in revision aggrieved of judgment dated 03.07.2018
passed by Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1949 Act’) whereby order passed by
Rent Controller, Amritsar dated 01.03.2017 allowing the ejectment
application filed by the landlord, stands affirmed.
2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter
are referred to by their legal status i.e. petitioner as tenant and respondent
No.1 as landlord.
1 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 2
3. Landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the 1949
Act, claiming that tenant was inducted vide rent note dated 31.12.1991 in the
demised premises on monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. Tenant made major
additions and alterations in the demised premises in the year 2006 and the
rent was enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per month. Landlord sought ejectment of
the tenant pleading his bona fide need as under :
“That the applicant is old aged person of about 66 years of
age and earlier the applicant was carrying on business of brokerage
of cloth and now on account of old age and ill health the applicant
is unable to carry out brokerage business and as such, the applicant
intends to set up his independent and separate cloth business in the
demised premises/tenanted premises as shown in red colour in the
site plan as stated above. It is pertinent to mention that applicant
and his wife are residing in the upper portion forming part of the
building in question and if the cloth business is being set up in the
demised premises/tenanted premises, the applicant will be in a
position to carry out and run business in the same very building
especially when he is residing in the upper portion of the building
in question as stated above and as such, by way of setting up
independent and separate cloth business in the tenanted premises,
the applicant will be in a position to earn his livelihood and he will
be in a position to maintain himself and his wife and at present the
applicant is not having any other source of income and so much so,
even the applicant suffered heart attack and paralysis about three
years back, but on account of old age, the applicant is unable to
carry out any brokerage business of cloth as stated above and as
such, keeping in view from any angle, need of the applicant is
bonafide and reasonable and even the applicant will be in a
position to spent evening of his life along with his. wife in a
reasonable, respectable and proper manner by way of earning from
the cloth business which is sought to be run in the tenanted
premises as stated above.
2 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 3
That it is pertinent to mention that in the building/property
in question red portion which has been shown in the site plan, is in
possession of the respondents and whereas the portion shown in
blue colour is in possession of other tenant i.e. M/s taken on rent
by another tenant on the basis of rent note dated 29-4-1986.
That it is worthy to mention that the demised premises/
tenanted premises as shown red in the site plan is most suitable
non- residential premises which are being required by the applicant
for his bonafide use and occupation and the demised
premises/tenanted premises as shown in red colour in the site plan
are being put to use for the commercial purposes since inception of
the tenancy and even demised premises/tenanted premises which is
taken on rent by the respondents for business purpose and the same
have been put to use for the business i.e. commercial purpose by
the respondents.
That the applicant does not own or possess and is not
having any other suitable such like premises/ accommodation, non-
residential within the urban area of Amritsar and the applicant has
not vacated any such accommodation residential character, without
of non- sufficient cause in the urban area of Amritsar after
commencement of Act III of 1949.
That it is stated that the respondents are having various such
like non-residential building/premises in their possession more
particularly situated at Golden Temple Road, Katra Dulo and
Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar.”
4. Eviction petition was contested by the tenant accusing landlord
of concealment of material facts. It was pleaded by the tenant that the
petitioner is 70 years of age and is not in position to carry out independent
business. He is sitting idle for last more than 20 years. Landlord has huge
properties situated in Amritsar, Saharanpur and Dehradun from where he is
earning rental income of more than Rs.80,000/- per month. The demised
3 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 4
premises is situated in residential locality and is not a commercial locality.
Landlord is a habitual litigant and the present petition is nothing but a ploy
to get the rent enhanced. It was further claimed that landlord is issueless and
has bequeathed the property in favour of son of his sister, who is also well
settled and does not require the premises.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, Rent Controller vide order dated
01.12.2014 framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the tenanted premises of the respondent is
bonafide required by the applicant?OPA.
2. Whether the present application is not maintainable?OPR.
3. Relief.
6. On the application filed by the tenant, Rent Controller vide
order dated 7th of February, 2017 framed additional issues:
“iii) Whether the applicant has not come to the court with clean
hands? OPR
iv) Whether the applicant has suppressed the material facts
from the court? OPR”
7. Vide order dated 7th of February, 2017, following issues were
finally framed :
“i) Whether the tenanted premises of the respondent is
bonafide required by the applicant?OPP.
ii). Whether the present application is not maintainable?OPR.
iii) Whether the applicant has not come to the court with clean
hands?OPR
iv) Whether the applicant has suppressed the material facts
from the court?OPR”
4 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 5
8. After analysing evidence brought on record by the parties, Rent
Controller found that the need projected by the landlord was bona fide and
ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises.
9. In appeal preferred by tenant, the aforesaid findings stands
affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
10. During the pendency of the instant revision petition, landlord
namely Inderjit Puri died. His LRs have been brought on record by way of
CM No.9542-CII of 2019 which stands allowed vide order dated
22.02.2023. Another application bearing CM No.19174-CII of 2024 has
been moved by tenant to bring on record agreement to sell dated 21.05.2024
alleged to have been executed by Pooja Rani, LR of landlord, whereby it is
being claimed that the LRs agreed to sell property in favour of Ms. Neetu
daughter of Sh. Hans Raj Kapoor and Ms. Ranju daughter of Sh. Vijay Ohri
for an amount of Rs.1,85,00,000/- and has also received an amount of
Rs.40,00,000/- as earnest money.
11. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Berjeshwar Singh Jaswal,
Advocate, thus claims that bona fide need as projected by the landlord not
only ceased to exist, but his LRs agreed to sell the demised premises further.
In view of the subsequent events, it is evident that the bona fide need
projected by the landlord has attained status of a mere wish, and thus the
present revision petition deserves to be allowed and accepted. Mr. Jaswal
further points out that no finding was returned by the Rent Controller on the
5 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 6
additional issues framed vide order dated 07.02.2017. Specific plea was
raised in the grounds of appeal. Appellate Authority yet chose to ignore the
same and thus the impugned orders passed by both the Authorities below
cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
12. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that the story
w.r.t. execution of agreement to sell, is not true and the same cannot be taken
into consideration. He submits that in case after eviction tenant finds that
the landlord has not occupied the demised premises and has further sold the
same, statue itself provides for the remedy. He further submits that so far as
subsequent event of death of the landlord is concerned, the same will have
no bearing on the fate of the instant revision. Crucial date for deciding bona
fide need of landlord, is the date of application and it is not necessary that
the same should continue till the date of final adjudication of the rights of
the parties that too beyond forum of first instance. He further relies upon
ratio of law laid by Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the case of
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014)9
SCC 78 wherein the scope of the revision under Section 15 of the 1949 Act
has been held to be much narrow as compared to regular second appeal. It
has been further asserted by counsel representing landlord that where in the
lis, issues are interconnected, it is always open to the court to decide the
issues together. Merely for the reason that the issues were not decided
separately, no fault can be found with the judgment. In order to hammer-
forth his contention, he relies upon law laid down by Apex Court in the case
6 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 7
of Shakuntala Bai and others vs. Narayan Dass and others, (2004) 5
SCC 772, Kamleshwar Prasad vs. Pradumanju Agarwal (dead) by Lrs,
(1997) 4 SCC 413, Surajmal vs. Radheysham, (1988) 3 SCC 18, N.R.
Narayan Swamy vs. B. Francis Jagan, (2001) 6 SCC 473, D. Sasi Kumar
vs. Soundararajan vs. Soundararajan, (2019) 9 SCC 282 and that by this
Court in the case of M/s. Gagan Traders and another vs. Jaspreet Singh
and another, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 521, Smt. Darshna Devi vs. Kewal
Krishan, 2015(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 285, Sher Singh and another vs. Siri
Kishan and others, 2010(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 340, International Institute of
Neuro Sciences & Oncology Ltd., Chandigarh and another vs. Sahibjit
Singh Sandhu and others, 2017(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 632, Ramesh Chander
vs. Amarjit Kaur, 2010(58) R.C.R.(Civil) 888 and Jugal Kishore vs. Om
Parkash and others, 2023(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 83.
13. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone
through records of the case.
14. Coming on to the primary contention raised by counsel for the
tenant regarding Rent Controller having failed to return findings on the
additional issues, a bare perusal of the order dated 07.02.2017 would reveal
that additional issues were indeed framed on the application filed by the
tenant. Statement was suffered by counsel representing tenant that he will
not lead any evidence, if the issues as mentioned in the application, are
framed and the evidence earlier led by the respondent be read after recasting
7 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 8
the issues. The additional issues which were framed vide order dated
07.02.2017 read as under :
“iii) Whether the applicant has not come to the court with clean
hands? OPR
iv) Whether the applicant has suppressed the material facts
from the court? OPR”
15. The pleading in the written statement of the tenant before the
Rent Controller relating to the additional issues reads as under :
“1. That the present petition is not legally maintainable and as
such the same is required to be dismissed.
2. xxx
3. xxx
4. That the petitioner has concealed the material facts from
the court and he has not come to the court with clean hands
and as such the petition is required to be dismissed.”
16. On being asked, counsel for the tenant/petitioner submits that
the material concealment relates to filing and withdrawal of the earlier
ejectment petition and it is on that ground that the subsequent eviction
petition filed by the petitioner, was not maintainable. From the perusal of
the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, it is evident that the
aforesaid plea has been taken care of and has been decided specifically as
under:
“22. Further, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that
applicant has previously also filed ejectment petition which has
also been dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the considered
view of this court, respondent cannot derive any benefit from the8 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 9
same, as previous ejectment petition has been dismissed as
withdrawn on the basis of compromise. Such previous ejectment
has been dismissed as withdrawn on 24.5.2006, whereas, the
present petition has been filed on 12.11.2013. As such, there is lot
of gap with previous petition and filing of present petition.”
17. Trite it is that once the parties have led their evidence and are
aware of the rival case, issues lose their significance. Merely for the reason
that the issues were not decided separately but together, the judgment cannot
be held to be perverse. The plea raised by counsel for the tenant regarding
there being no finding on additional issues, cannot be sustained in view of
the specific finding given by Rent Controller w.r.t. alleged concealment and
plea raised w.r.t. to maintainability of the eviction petition. He is not in
position to show any perversity in the said findings recorded by the Rent
Controller. He is not in position to dispute that the cause of action pleaded
in the earlier eviction petition and the one pleaded in the instant eviction
petition, are different. Landlord is not precluded in bringing fresh eviction
petition on same ground as cause of action pleaded is fresh and different.
18. In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to non-
suit the landlord w.r.t. maintainability of the eviction petition merely on the
ground that earlier eviction petition was withdrawn. Consequently, the
argument raised w.r.t. additional issues and absence of finding thereon, sans
merit and deserves to be rejected.
9 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 10
19. Coming on to the issues of subsequent events i.e. death of the
landlord during the pendency of the instant revision petition, Supreme Court
in D. Sasi Kumar‘s case (supra) held as under :
“11. Further the High Court has also erroneously arrived at the
conclusion that the bonafide occupation as sought should be not
only on the date of the petition but it should continue to be there on
the date of final adjudication of rights. Firstly, there is no material
on record to indicate that the need as pleaded at the time of filing
the petition does not subsist at this point. Even otherwise such
conclusion cannot be reached, when it cannot be lost sight that the
very judicial process consumes a long period and because of the
delay in the process if the benefit is declined it would only
encourage the tenants to protract the litigation so as to defeat the
right. In the instant case it is noticed that the petition filed by the
landlord is of the year 2004 which was disposed of by the Rent
Controller only in the year 2011. The appeal was thereafter
disposed of by the Appellate Authority in the year 2013. The High
Court had itself taken time to dispose of the Revision Petition, only
on 06.03.2017. The entire delay cannot be attributed to the
landlord and deny the relief. If as on the date of filing the petition
the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be
sufficient irrespective of the time lapse in the judicial process
coming to an end. This Court in the case of Gaya Prasad vs.
Pradeep Srivastava, (2001) 2 SCC 604 has held that the landlord
should not be penalised for the slowness of the legal system and
the crucial date for deciding the bonafide requirement of landlord
is the date of application for eviction, which we hereby reiterate.”
20. This Court also had an occasion to deal with the same question.
After considering various precedents, this Court in CR No.3589 of 2016
10 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 11
titled as ‘Sardari Lal (since deceased) through his LRs vs. Rattan Lal
(since deceased) through his LRs & ors.’, observed as under :
“17. ….The law regarding effect of death of landlord on the
eviction proceedings initiated by him pleading bona-fide need is no
more res-integra. Supreme Court in the case of Carona Ltd. Vs.
Parvathy Swaminathan & sons (2007) 89 SCC 559 held as
under :-
“35. The learned counsel for the tenant then submitted that
it was obligatory on the courts below including the High
Court to take into consideration subsequent events. In
support of the submission, our attention has been invited by
the counsel to a leading decision of this Court in
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders,
(1975) 1 SCC 770. In that case, the plaintiff filed a suit for
possession on the ground of personal requirement for
starting business. A decree for possession was passed in his
favour which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. At the
stage of Revision, however, due to subsequent event of
acquisition of nonresidential building by the plaintiff-
landlord, an application for amendment was made by the
defendant- tenant. The High Court allowed the amendment.
The plaintiff challenged the said order by approaching this
Court. It was contended that the High Court committed an
error in taking cognizance of subsequent event which was
‘disastrous’. This Court, however, held that the High Court
had not committed any illegality in doing so.
36. Referring to leading cases on the point, Krishna Iyer, J.
stated;
“We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First
about the jurisdiction and propriety vis-a`-vis
circumstances which come into being subsequent to
the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to
our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief
must be judged to exist as on the date a suit or11 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 12
institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the
principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the
mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising
after the lis has come to court and has a
fundamental impact on the right to relief or the
manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the
notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind
to events which stultify or render inept the decretal
remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of
procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is
not violated, with a view to promote substantial
justice-subject, of course, to the absence of other
disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can
we contemplate any limitation on this power to take
note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court.
If the litigation pends, the power exits, absent other
special circumstances repelling resort to that course
in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion,
even as situations for applications of this equitable
rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for
making the right or remedy claimed by the party just
and meaningful as also legally and factually in
accord with the current realities, the Court can, and
in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of
events and developments subsequent to the
institution of the proceeding provided the rules of
fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.” .
37. In our judgment, the law is fairly settled. The basic
rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on
the basis of the date of institution of the suit. Thus, if the
plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the filing of
the suit, ordinarily, he will not be allowed to take advantage
of the cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the
suit. Conversely, no relief will normally be denied to the
plaintiff by reason of any subsequent event if at the date of
12 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 13
the institution of the suit, he has a substantive right to claim
such relief.
18. Similarly in the case of Usha P.Kuvelkar Vs. Ravindra
Subrai Dalvi (2008) 1 RCR (Civil) 108, Supreme Court held as
under :-
“11. It was tried to be argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent that since the landlord had died, the need had
expired with him and that the question will have to be
examined again regarding the bonafide personal need of
the landlord. The question is no more res integra and is
covered by the decision of this Court in Shakuntala Bai &
Others vs. Narayan Das &Ors. [(2004) 5 SCC 772]. This
Court has observed:
“…The bona fide need of the landlord has to be
examined as on the date of institution of the
proceedings and if a decree for eviction is passed,
the death of the landlord during the pendency of the
appeal preferred by the tenant will make no
difference as his heirs are fully entitled to defend the
estate.”
In the same decision a contrary note expressed by
this Court in P.V. Papanna vs. Padmanabhaiah [(1994) 2
SCC 316] was held to be in the nature of an obiter. This
Court in Shakuntala Bai &Ors. (supra) referred to the
decision in ShantilalThakordas vs. ChimanlalMaganlal
Telwala [(1976) 4 SCC 417] and specifically observed that
the view expressed in ShantilalThakordas’s case did not, in
any manner, affect the view expressed in Phool Rani vs.
Naubat Rai Ahluwalia [(1973)1 SCC 688] to the effect that
where the death of landlord occurs after the decree for
possession has been passed in his favour, his legal heirs are
entitled to defend the further proceedings like an appeal
and the benefit accrued to them under the decree. Here in
13 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 14
this case also it is obvious that the original landlord
Prabhakar Govind Sinai Kuvelkar had expired only after
the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.
This is apart from the fact that the landlord had sought the
possession not only for himself but also for his family
members. There is a clear reference in Section 23(1)(a)(i) of
the Act regarding occupation of the family members of the
landlord. In that view the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent must be rejected.”
19. This Court in the case of Smt. Darshna Devi Vs. Kewal
Krishan, 2015(1) RentLR 71 dealing with the same issue held as
under :-
“9. It is settled principle that the cause of action is to be
seen on the date of application and merely because the
landlord has died during the pendency of litigation would
not be a ground to set aside the relief which the land had
earned after leading evidence. Reliance can be placed upon
the judgment of this Court in M/s Gagan Traders and
another Vs. Jaspreet Singh and another 2010(4) PLR 38
wherein the judgment of the Apex Court in Kamleshwar
Prasad Vs. Pradumanju Aggarwal 1997(1) RCR 591 and
Shakuntala Bai and others Vs. Narayan Dass and others
2004(5) SCC 772 were kept in mind while dismissing the
revision petition of the tenant. Similar view has also been
taken by the Apex Court in Usha P. Kuvelkar and others Vs.
Ravindra Subrai Dalvi 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 291
wherein it has been held that the requirement is to be seen
at the time of filing of the petition. The landlord had himself
stepped into the witness box and deposed regarding his
need and both the Courts below had found his bonafide
requirement just and honest and that it was not for the
tenant to dictate the terms and tell where the landlord
should settle and carry on his business.
14 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 15
10. The principle that weighed with the Apex Court was
that proceeding takes long time to culminate and that
maxim ‘actus curiae neminemgravabit’ would come into
play ‘since an act of Court shall prejudice no man.’ The
principle of law thus laid down in Shakuntala Bai‘s case
(surpa) reads as under:-
“15. As the preamble shows the Madhya Pradesh
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been enacted
for expeditious trial of eviction cases on the ground
of bona fide requirement of landlords and generally
to regulate and control eviction of tenants. If the
subsequent event like the death of the landlord is to
be taken note of at every stage till the decree attains
finality, there will be no end to litigation. By the time
a second appeal gets decided by the High Court,
generally a long period elapses and on such a
principle if during this period the landlord who
instituted the proceedings dies, the suit will have to
be dismissed without going into merits. The same
thing may happen in a fresh suit filed by the heirs
and it may become an unending process. Taking into
consideration the subsequent events may, at times,
lead to rendering the whole proceedings taken
infructuous and colossal waste of public time. There
is no warrant for interpreting a Rent Control
legislation in such a manner the basic object of
which is to save harassment of tenants from
unscrupulous landlords. The object is not to deprive
the owners of their properties for all times to come.”
20. Thus trite it is that the rights of the parties need to be
determined as they stood on the date of institution of the suit.
Where plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of filing of the
suit, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of the cause of action
arising subsequent to filing of the suit. Conversely, any subsequent
event cannot be held to deny the relief to the plaintiff to which he
15 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 16
had a substantive right to claim on the date of institution of the suit.
It took 14 long years for the landlord in the Courts to get eviction
of the tenant on the ground of bona-fide need. After waiting for 14
years he could not enjoy the vacant possession but unfortunately
died. The time spent by the Courts in adjudicating upon the claim
of the landlord cannot be held against him.”
21. Thus, merely for the reason that the landlord has died during the
pendency of the instant revision petition, this Court does not find any reason
to hold that bonafide need of the landlord ceased to exist to non-suit the
landlord and to allow the instant revision petition.
22. Coming on to the next argument raised by counsel for the tenant
regarding execution of agreement to sell by the LR of deceased/landlord, the
answer lies in the bare provision itself. Section 13(3)(a) of 1949 Act reads
as under:
“13. Eviction of tenants. (1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) (a)A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order
directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession –
(i) in the case of a residential [ * * *] [The words ‘or a
scheduled’ omitted by Punjab Act 29 of 1956, Section 2.]
building if –
(a) he requires it for his own occupation;
(b) he is not occupying another residential [* *
*] [The words ‘or a scheduled’ omitted by Punjab
Act 29 of 1956, section 2.] building, [* * *] [***]
[The words ‘as the case may be’ omitted by Punjab
Act 29 of 1956.] in the urban area concerned; and
(c) he has not vacated such a building without
sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act,
in the said urban area;
16 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 17
[(d) it was let to the tenant for use as a residence by
reason of his being in the service or employment of
the landlord, and the tenant has ceased, whether
before or after the commencement of this Act, to be
in such service or employment: [Added by Punjab
Act 21 of 1957, Section 2.]
Provided that where the tenant is workman who has been
discharged or dismissed by the landlord from his service or
employment in contravention of the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he shall not be liable to be
evicted until the competent authority under that Act
confirms the order of discharge or dismissal made against
him by the landlord.]
[(i-a) In the case of a residential building, if the landlord is a
member of the armed forces of the Union of India and requires it
for the occupation of his family and if he produces a certificate of
the prescribed authority, referred to in Section 7 of the Indian
Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, that he is serving under special
conditions within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. [Sub-
paragraph (i-a) added by Punjab Act 6 of 1966, Section 2.]
Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-paragraph –
(1) the certificate of the prescribed authority shall be
conclusive evidence that the landlord is serving under
special conditions; and
(2) “family” means such relations of the landlord as
ordinarily live with him and are dependent upon him;]
(ii) in the case of [a non-residential building or] [The words ‘a
non-residential building or’ were omitted by Punjab Act No. 29 of
1956, Section 2(ii)(a).] rented land, if –
(a) he requires it for his own use;
(b) he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for
the purpose of his business any other such [building or]
[The words ‘building or’ were omitted by Punjab Act 29 of
17 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 18
1956, section 2(ii)(c).] rented land, [as the case may be]
[The words ‘as the case may be’ were omitted by Punjab Act
29 of 1956.]; and
(c) he has not vacated such [a building or] [The words
‘a building or’ were omitted by Punjab Act 29 of 1956,
section 3(ii)(c).] rented land without sufficient cause after
the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned;
[(iii) in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to
carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or
local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement
or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for
human habitation;] [Substituted by Punjab Act 29 of 1956, section
2(iii).]
(iv) in the case of [any building] [The words ‘any residential
building’, were substituted for the words ‘any building’ by Punjab
Act 29 of 1956, section 2(iv).] if he requires it for use as an office,
or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a
lawyer or as a “registered practitioner” within the meaning of that
expression as used in the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1916,
or for the residence of his son who is married, if –
(a) his son as aforesaid is not occupying in the urban
area concerned any other building for use as office,
consulting room or residence, as the case may be; and
(b) his son as aforesaid has not vacated such a building
without sufficient cause after the commencement of this
Act, in the urban area concerned:
Provided that where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed
upon between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord [shall
not, except under sub-paragraph (i-a), be entitled] [Substituted
for the words ‘shall not be entitled’ by Punjab Act 6 of 1966,
section 2.] to apply under this sub-section before the expiry of
such period:
18 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 19
Provided further that where the landlord has obtained possession of
[a residential, a scheduled or non-residential building or rented
land] [The words ‘a residential building or rented land’ were
substituted for the words ‘a residential, a scheduled or non-
residential building or rented land’ by Punjab Act 29 of 1956,
section 2(v).] under the provisions of sub- paragraph (i) or sub-
paragraph (ii) he shall not be entitled to apply again under the
said sub-paragraphs for the possession of any other building of
the same class or rented land:
Provided further that where a landlord has obtained possession of
any building under the provisions of sub-paragraph (iv) he
shall not be entitled to apply again under the said sub-
paragraph for the possession of any other building for the
use of, or as the case may be, for the residence of the same
son.
(b) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of
the landlord is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put
the landlord in possession of the building or rented land on such
date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is
not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application:
Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time
for putting the landlord in possession of the building or
rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed
three months in the aggregate.
[(c)Where an application is made under sub-paragraph (i-a)
of paragraph (a), it shall be disposed of, as far as may be, within a
period of one month and if the claim of the landlord is accepted,
the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the
landlord in possession of the building on a date to be specified in
the order and such date shall not be later than fifteen days from the
date of the order.] [Added by Punjab Act 6 of 1966.]19 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 20
(4) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a
building or rented land in pursuance of an order under sub-
paragraph (i) or sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of sub-section
(3) [does not himself occupy it or, if possession was obtained by
him for his family in pursuance of an order under sub- paragraph
(i-a) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3), his family does not occupy
the residential building, or, if possession] [Substituted for the
words ‘does not himself occupy it or, if possession’ by Punjab Act 6
of 1966, section 2(2).] was obtained by him on behalf of his son in
pursuance of an order under sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of
sub-section (3), his son does not occupy it for the purpose for
which possession was obtained, for a continuous period of twelve
months from the date of obtaining possession or where a landlord
who has obtained possession of a building under sub-paragraph
(iii) of the aforesaid paragraph (a) puts that building to any use or
lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the
tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an
order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such
building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order
accordingly.”
23. Thus, wherever tenant is ordered to be evicted on the ground of
bona fide need under Section 13(3)(a) and the landlord or his family does
not occupy the building obtained by him by way of eviction petition for a
continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining of possession, the
evicted tenant has a right to apply to the Controller for an order directing
that the possession be restored back to him. In case, the LRs of landlord
instead of occupying the demised premises themselves, transfer the same in
favour of third party, the petitioner/tenant will have a right to reclaim the
possession under Section 13(4) of 1949 Act.
20 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006947
CR No.6559 of 2018 (O&M) 21
24. In view of above, finding no merit in the instant revision
petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed.
25. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.
January 17, 2025 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
21 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 18:18:45 :::