Raj Arora Since Deceased Through His Lrs v. Smt Santosh Lamba

CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo1 oINoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARH CR-3377-2025o(O&M) Pronouncedoonoo:ooo04.07.2025 RajoArorao(sinceodeceased)othroughoHisoLRs ooooooo......oPetitioner o Versus Smt.oSantoshoLamba ooooooo ooooooooooooooo......oRespondent CORAMo:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVIKRAMoAGGARWALo *** Arguedobyo: Mr.oChetanoMittal,oSenioroAdvocateowitho Mr.oKunaloMulwani,oAdvocateoando Mr.oDivanshuoJain,oAdvocateoando Mr.oAbhinavoGoel,oAdvocate forotheopetitioner. *** oVIKRAMoAGGARWALo,oJ Thisoisotenant'sorevisionopetitionoagainstotheoorderodatedo17.04.2025, passedobyotheoAppellateoAuthority,oChandigarh,odismissingotheoappealofiledobyothe petitioner/tenantoagainstotheoorderodatedo08.12.2023,opassedobyotheoCourtoofoRent Controller, o Chandigarh o vide o which o the o eviction o petition o preferred o by o the respondent-landladyounderoSectiono13oofotheoPunjaboUrbanoRentoRestrictionoAct, 1949o(hereinafteroreferredotooaso'theoRentoAct')owasoallowed. 2(i). Theofacts,oasoemanatingofromotheopleadings,oareothatotheorespondent-landladyo(Smt.oSantoshoLamba)oinstitutedoaopetitiono(AnnexureoP-2)ounderoSection 13oofotheoRentoActoagainstoRajoArorao(Predecessoroinointerestoofotheopresent petitioners,owhooareotheolegalorepresentativesoofoSh.oRajoArora)oforohisoeviction fromotheofirstoflooroofoHouseoNo.1162,oSectoro37-B,oChandigarho(hereinafter CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo2 referredotooaso'theodemisedopremises). 2(ii). TheocaseosetooutoinotheoevictionopetitionowasothatoSh.oRajoAroraowasoa tenantoonotheofirstoflooroofotheodemisedopremisesosinceo01.04.2008.ooTheodemised premisesohadobeenoletooutoatoaomonthlyorentoofoRs.8,000/-owhichowasoincreasedoto Rs.8400/-ow.e.f.o11.06.2009owhenotheorentoagreementowasoextendedoforoaoperiodoof 11omonths. 2(iii). Evictionoofotheotenantowasosoughtoonotheogroundothatotheorespondent-landladyorequiredotheodemisedopremisesoforoherodaughteronamelyoPreetioLamba whoowasoaoteacheroinoSachdevaoPublicoSchool,oPitampura.ooSheowasoaodivorceeoand wasolivingowithoheroparents.ooSheowasodueotooretireoono31.03.2019.ooTheopetitioner andoherohusband,obothoofowhomowereooldoandoailing,owantedotooshiftotooChandigarh alongwithotheirodaughterowhereotheolandladyoandoherohusbandowouldoresideoonothe groundoflooroandotheirodaughterowouldoresideoonotheofirstoflooroandowouldoalsootake tuitionsoforoherodayotoodayoexpenses. 2(iv). Itowasoaverredothatotheohusbandoofotheorespondent-landladyowhoowas ownerotootheoextentoofo50%oshareoinotheohouseohadoearlierofiledoanoevictionopetition againstotheotenantoinooccupationoofotheogroundofloor,oonotheogroundoofopersonal necessity,opursuantotoowhichotheogroundofloorohadobeenovacatedoino2015.ooHowever, for,otheorespondent-landladyosufferedoaoparalyticoattack,osheoalongwithoherohusband couldonotoshiftotooChandigarh. 3(i). Theoevictionopetitionowasoopposedobyowayoofowrittenostatement (AnnexureoP-3).ooCertainopreliminaryoobjectionsowereoraised.ooItowasoaverredothat thereowasonoobonafideoneedoandotheosoleopurposeoofotheoinstitutionoofotheoeviction petitionowasotooevictotheopetitioneroandoenhancementooforentobyolettingooutothe CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo3 demisedopremisesotoosomeootherotenant.o oItowasoaverredothatopursuantotoothe evictionoofotheotenantoonotheogroundofloor,otheorespondent-landladyoandoher husbandohadonotooccupiedotheosameoasoaoresultoofowhichoitostoodoprovedothatothere wasonooneedoofotheofirstofloor.ooItowasoalsooaverredothatotheogroundofloorowas sufficientoforotheoneedsoofotheolandladyoevenoifosheointendedotooshift.ooOnomerits, theorelationshipoofolandlordoandotenant,oexecutionoofotheoleaseodeed,orateooforentoetc. wereoadmitted.ooRemainingoavermentsowereodeniedoandoaocaseowasosetoupothatothere wasonoobonafideoneedoofotheorespondent-landlady. 3(ii). ItowasostatedothatoSmt.oPreetioLambaowasoresidingoatoDelhioandohadono intentionoofoshiftingotooChandigarh.o oItowasoaverredothatosinceotheodemised premisesowasoresidential,onootuitionsocouldobeotakenoinotheosameoasoitowould amountotoomisuseooforesidentialopremises.ooItowasoalsooaverredothatotheorespondent-landladyoalongwithoherohusbandohadobeenolivingoinoaojointofamilyoinoDelhiowith theiromarried osonoandogrand ochildrenoand ohadono ointentionoofoshiftingoto Chandigarh.

¶4Replicationowasofiledoinowhichotheoavermentsomadeoinotheowritten statementowereodeniedoandothoseoinotheoevictionopetitionowereoreiterated.

¶5Fromotheopleadingsoofotheoparties,otheofollowingoissuesowereoframed byotheotrialoCourt:-

¶1Whetherotheopetitioneroisoentitledoforoevictionoonotheoground ofobonaofideopersonalonecessityo?oOPP

¶2WhetherothisoCourtoatoChandigarhohasogotonooterritorial jurisdictionotootryoandodecideotheopresentosuito?oOPR

¶3WhetherotheopetitionerohasonotoapproachedotheoCourtowith cleanohandsoandoconcealedomaterialofactso?oOPR.

¶4Relief. CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo4

¶6The parties led their respective evidence.

¶7The Court of Rent Controller decreed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady. Theooappealo iledobyotheopetitioner'tenantoagainstotheosaid de&isiono%asodismissed,oleadingotootheo ilingoo otheopresentorevisionopetition.

¶8Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner was heard. 9(i). Sh. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner strenuously urged that the impugned orders are not sustainable. He submitted that the need of the landlady was not bonafide and was a mere wish and desire and was in fact her greed and that she wanted eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises with a view to let it out to some other person at a hefty rent. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the entire oral and documentary evidence as also the pleadings which were duly produced during the course of arguments and it was submitted that both Courts had erroneously and illegally accepted the eviction petition. 9(ii). Learned Senior Counsel submitted that despite the ground floor of the house in question having been vacated in 2015, pursuant to an eviction petition having been filed by the husband of the respondent-landlady on the ground of personal necessity, the respondent-landlady and her husband did not occupy the same, which itself proves that there is no actual need of the demised premises. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this alone would be sufficient to demolish the case of the respondent-landlady. 9(iii). It was further contended that the ingredients of Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act were missing in the eviction petition as also in the evidence. It was CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo5 submitted that once the respondent-landlady had sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the same was required for use and occupation of the daughter of the respondent-landlady, it was a legal requirement for the respondent-landlady to have pleaded in the eviction petition that her daughter did not possess any such premises in Chandigarh or that she had not vacated any such premises without any reasonable cause. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that neither were such averments made in the eviction petition nor they were made in the evidence of the respondent-landlady or her daughter. 9(iv). Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even the second floor of the house in question is lying vacant which has been concealed in the eviction petition but has been admitted by Smt. Preeti Lamba in the cross-examination and that the said portion would be sufficient for their needs, even if they intend to shift. 9(v). It was lastly contended that even the application for additional evidence (Annexure P-6) was erroneously rejected by the First Appellate Court. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that by way of additional evidence, the petitioner-tenant intended to prove that the demised premises could not be used for conducting tuition classes and the same would be considered a misuse. The application had also been filed to prove that the ground floor of the premises were again let out to a tenant namely Arabindo after getting the same vacated on the ground of personal necessity. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed upon the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of State Bank of Patiala versus S.Zulzuaoar Singh Virk and others 2003 (1) RCR (Rent) 670, (Law Finder Doc Id # 43342), Manmohan Lal versus Shanti Parkash Jain


  2014 (5) RCR (Civil) 667 (Law Finder Doc Id # 603761), Ajit Singh & Anr. Versus Jit Ram & Anr. 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 390 (Law Finder Doc Id # 146060), Rajiv Gupta versus Jiwan Ram 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 762 (Law Finder Doc Id # 631813), Subhash versus Yash Pal 2014 (10) RCR (Civil) 1370, Joginder Singh Sawhney versus Harbans Lal 2003 (1) RCR (Rent) 528 and Vidya Rattan Taneja & Anr. Versus Ram Lal Sachdeva & Anr. 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 639.

¶10I have considered the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner and have perused the paper book including the pleadings and part of the oral evidence which was duly produced during the course of arguments. 11(i). The demised premises is the first floor of House No. 4(&

#' 5   
  '  -((  0  /%   "4 

 & ' %   

%   ( 0

0  =

  

    

  &7        

        %&     %   &&      

  

&     &     %   

>   7      

    &   &    

 $  &&    *  (  

 9 &  


       





! " 


 #$  %  & '



 (!  ) * *   +   "$ , - ../ (0 1
2 . 0 %? < &9@ #"
 9%

 

%  

  %&

   

 %

 7  

% 

    %&% CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo7 tooutilizeotheosame.ooTheoonlyoconditionoisothatosuchoneedoshouldobeobonafideoand shouldonotobeoaomereowishoorodesire.ooInotheoconsideredoopinionoofothisoCourt,othe respondent-landladyosuccessfullyoprovedothatoheroneedowasobonafideoandothatoin theoeveningoofoherolife,osheowishedotoosettleodownoinoChandigarhoonotheoground flooroofotheohouseoinoquestionowithoherodaughterostayingoonotheofirstofloor. 11(ii). Theoargumentothatonoocommercialoactivityowouldobeopermittedoinoa residentialopremisesoisoaocompletelyomis-foundedoargumentonotoalloopenotoobe raisedobyoaotenant.ooEachoandoeveryopersonowhooresidesoinoaoresidentialopropertyois boundobyotheolawsoofotheoarea.ooNowhereowasoitostatedonorowasoitoeverotheocaseoof theorespondent-landladyothatoherodaughterowouldorunoaocoachingocentreoinothe demisedopremises.ooIfoaoretiredoteacheroteachesoaofewostudentsoforoaosocialocause,oit cannot,obyoanyostretchoofoimagination,obeosaidotoobeoaocommercialoactivityoviolating theorulesoandoregulations.ooInoanyocase,otheoAppellateoAuthorityorightlyoobserved thatoitowouldobeoforotheolandlordotoodealowithosuchosituations.ooInoanyocase,omerely becauseoitowasostatedothatotheodaughteroofotheorespondent-landladyowouldotake tuitionsowouldonotomeanothatothisoisotheosoleogroundoonowhichoevictionowasobeing soughtoandoinfactotheoprimaryogroundowasothatotheorespondent-landladyowantedoher retiredodivorcedodaughterotooliveowithoheroinoherooldoageoandotheoneedoprojectedoin theoevictionopetitionowasothatoofotheolandladyoandonotothatoofotheodaughter.ooItowas nowhereotheocaseoofotheorespondent-landladyothatotheodemisedopremisesowas requiredoforotheopurposeoofoholdingotuitionsobyoherodaughter.ooTheoargumentois, therefore,ocompletelyodevoidoofomeritoandoisorejected. 11(iii). Theosecondoargumentothatodespiteotheogroundofloorohavingobeen vacatedopursuantotooanoevictionopetitionohavingobeenofiledobyotheohusbandoofothe CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo8 respondent-landladyoonotheogroundoofopersonalonecessity,otheosameowasonot occupiedowhichoprovesothatothereowasonooactualobonafideonecessityoisoalsoodevoid ofomerit.ooDueoexplanationoaboutonon-occupationoofotheogroundofloorowasogivenoby theolandladyoandowasoprovedobyoleadingoevidence.ooItocameoonorecordothatothe landladyohadosufferedoaoparalyticoattackoinoMarch,o2015oasoaoresultoofowhichoshe couldonotoshiftotooChandigarh.ooItohasotoobeoborneoinomindothatotheolandladyoisoan oldowomanoandoherohusbandoalsoounfortunatelyoexpiredoino2019.ooMerelyobecause theyowereounableotoooccupyotheogroundoflooroofotheohouseoinoquestionowouldonot meanothatotheironeedoisonotobonafide.oo 11(iv). Asoregardsotheosecondofloorobeingovacant,onoodoubt,oSmt.oPreeti LambaowhileoappearingoasoPW2oadmittedoinoherocross-examinationothatotheosecond floorowasolyingovacant.ooHowever,oinotheosameobreath,osheostatedothatoitocomprises ofotwoorooms.ooSheoalsoostatedothatosheowouldoresideoonotheogroundofloorowithoher mother.ooInotheoconsideredoopinionoofothisoCourt,oaotenantocannotobeopermittedotoogo intoosuchominuteodetailsoasotoowhetherotheodaughteroofotheolandladyowouldoreside onotheogroundofloorooroonotheofirstofloor.ooAnybodyowouldohaveoaodesireotoohaveoan independentosetoupoonoanoindependentoflooroandothenowhetherosheosleepsoatonight onotheogroundofloorooroonotheofirstofloorowouldohardlyobeoaoconcernoofotheotenant. Theosecondoflooromustonotohaveobeenofoundotoobeosuitableoforotheoneedsoofothe respondent-landladyooroherodaughter.ooInoanyocase,oitowouldonotobeoopenoforothe tenantotoosuggestothatotheodaughteroofotheorespondent-landladyocanoresideoonothe secondofloor.ooAtotheocostooforepetition,oitoisoreiteratedothatotheotenantoisoabsolutely nobodyotoogiveosuchoaosuggestion. 11(v). Asoregardsotheodismissaloofotheoapplicationoforoadditionaloevidence, CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo9 adequateoreasonsowereogivenobyotheoAppellateoAuthority.o oIodoonotofindoany illegalityoinotheosame.ooAllopointsohadodulyobeenocoveredoandothereowouldobeono necessityoofopermittingoadditionaloevidenceotoobeoproducedowhichoappearedotoobe anoattemptotoodelayotheoproceedings. 11(vi). Comingotootheoargumentoonowhichoaolotoofostressowasolaidoby learnedoSenioroCounselothatotheoingredientsoofoSectiono13o(3)(a)(i)oofotheoRentoAct wereomissingoasoitohadonotobeenopleadedothatotheodaughteroofotheolandladyoalsoodid notohaveoanyosuchopremisesoinoherooccupationoorothatosheohadonotovacatedoanyosuch premisesowithoutoreasonableocause,otheosameoisoalsoofoundotoobeodevoidoofomerit. Firstoofoall,oitowasodulyoaverredoinotheoevictionopetitionoasoalsooinotheoaffidavit tenderedoinoexamination-in-chiefoonobehalfoofotheorespondent-landladyothatosheodid notopossessoanyootheroresidentialopremisesoinotheourbanoareaoofoChandigarhonoroshe hadovacatedoanyosuchopremisesoafterotheoenforcementoofotheoRentoAct.ooItohasotoobe borneoinomindothatotheoneedowhichowasoprojectedoinotheoevictionopetitionowasothat ofotheorespondent-landladyoandonotothatoofoherodaughter.ooUnderotheocircumstances, itowasonotoessentialoforoherotoohaveomentionedothatoherodaughterodidonotopossess anyootheroresidentialopremisesoinotheourbanoareaoofoChandigarhonorohadosheovacated suchopremises.ooInoarrivingoatothisoopinion,oIodrawosupportofromoaojudgmentoofoa CoordinateoBenchoinotheocaseoofoHarbhajanoSingho(deceased)othroughohisoLR VersusoLakhbiroSinghoandootherso2019o(2)oRCRo(Rent)o316o(LawoFinderoDocoIdo# 1486326);

12.oToohaveoaolookoonotheoneedoasoprojectedobyorespondentoNo.1-landlord,oreferenceomayobeomadeotootheopleadingsoinoparao5oas reproducedoabove,owhereinoheohasopleadedothatosonooforespondent No.1,orespondentsoNo.2oando4owantotooliveoinothisohouse.oWhile CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo10 appearing as PW1, he has stated that after being given possession of 1st and 2nd floor, respondent No.1 started living there with his family, which, however, was got vacated by respondent under police pressure. Kamalpreet Singh son of elder sister of respondent No.1 Lakhbir Singh is suffering from blood cancer and is regularly getting treatment from PGI, Chandigarh for which family has to stay at Chandigarh to attend the patient. Father of Kamalpreet is also suffering from serious ailments and is bed ridden, as such, the house in question is urgently required by the family. He has further stated that entire house is required by respondents as they do not own any other accommodation in or around Chandigarh. He and his family are frequent visitors to Chandigarh and want to live here with their son, who is residing at Chandigarh in a rented accommodation. Kuldeep Kaur, respondent No.2 has stated that her son Jagmohan Singh has come to Chandigarh in connection with his transport business and she wants to settle here. She has also corroborated the statement of PW1 Lakhbir Singh regarding the requirement of demised premises. From the aforesaid statements of witnesses, it is evident that respondents have requirement of the demised premises. Respondents are four in number and they want to live in this house with son of respondent No.1, 2 and 4. The requirement has also been projected for the son of sister of Lakhbir Singh, who with his family comes to Chandigarh for treatment from PGI. From the above evidence, it is clear that respondents-landlord required this entire house for their bonafide need. It has though not been specifically averred in the petition that son of respondent No.1 is dependent on him but the tone and tenor of his pleadings and evidence, it is evident that his son wants to live with him in this house and to explain the need of the son, no specific wording is provided under the Rent Act for pleading this fact. The same can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. Lakhbir Singh has stated that after completing his studies, his CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo11 sonorespondentoNo.3ohasocomeotooChandigarh.oHeoisodoingohisojob hereoandolivingoinoaorentedoaccommodation.oThisoshowsothatothe accommodation o with o the o respondent o is o not o sufficient o to accommodateohisoson.oEvenootherwise,oitoisoaosettledoprincipleoofolaw thatotheolandlordoisobestojudgeoofohisoneedoandotenantocannotodictate anyotermsoinothisoregard. o 11(vii). Noodoubt,oinotheocaseoofoAjitoSingho&oAnr.oversusoJitoRamo& Anr.o(supra),otheoSupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoheldothatosuchoavermentsowereoessential. Inothatocase,oevictionowasobeingosoughtofromoaonon-residentialopremises.ooStill further,otheopremisesoinoquestionohadofallenotootheoshareoofotheosonoofotheolandlord andoitowasounderothoseocircumstancesothatotheoSupremeoCourtoheldothatosuch avermentsowereoessential.ooAocoordinateoBenchodealtowithotheoissueoinotheocaseoof NavyugoGoodsoCarrieroversusoManpreetoSinghoandoanothero2018o(2)oRCR

(Rent)o496o(LawoFinderoDocoIdo#o1242986)owhereinoaosimilaroissueohadoarisen. AfterodiscussingotheojudgmentoofotheoSupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoinotheocaseoofoAjit Singho&oAnr.oversusoJitoRamo&oAnr.o(supra),otheoCoordinateoBenchoheldothatono suchoavermentsowereorequired;

19.oOnocarefuloreadingoofotheoaforesaidojudgments,oitoisoapparent thatotheoCourtohasoreliedouponotheocaseoofoAjitoSingho(supra).oThe factsoofotheocaseoofoAjitoSingho(supra)oareoentirelyodifferent.oStill further,oevenowithorespectotootheolandlord,othisoCourtoafterothe judgmentopassedobyotheoFulloBench,ohasotakenoaoconsistentoview thatotheolandlordoisorequiredotooproveotheoingredients,ohowever,oitois notonecessaryothatothoseoingredientsomustobeopleaded.oEvenoifothe requirementsoareonotopleadedobutothoseoareoprovedobyoleading evidence,oitoisosufficientocomplianceoofotheo1949oAct.oAlthough,othe viewoonothisoaspectoisoconsistent,ohowever,oreferenceocanobeomadeoto CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo12 ao-udgmentoinotheocaseoo9oM>so<hatiaoC$otho3ouseov.o1r.oRa-oKumar #u8taoandoanother,o200/(()oRCRo(Civi$)o2!0oando8arao10othereo9ois e?tractedoasounder@A "The first contention relates to the assertion by counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have failed to plead that they are not occupying any other building and have not vacated any such building without sufficient cause, within the urban area of Ambala City. A perusal of the ejectment petition discloses that in sub-para (b) of para 5 and para 6 of the ejectment petition, the landlords pleaded that they are not in possession of any other shop within the urban area of Ambala City. In the written statement, the aforementioned averment was not denied. Further more, it is consistent position in law that ambiguity in pleadings regarding the ingredients, set out in Section 13(3)(a) of the Act, if made good in the evidence, is sufficient compliance of the statutory provisions. Reference in this regard may be made to Daulat Ram v. Girdhari Lal, 1980 (2) RCR (Rent) 108, Romesh v. Mukand Lal, 1982(2) RCR 66 and Baldev Raj v. Ram Lal, 2006(2) RCR (Rent) 193 : 2006(4) CCC 264. Respondent No. 1 admittedly, does not occupy any shop within the urban area of Ambala City. He is in occupation of a residential premises. Ejectment in the instant petition has been sought from a shop. Requisite and necessary evidence has been led to establish that respondent No. 1 is not in occupation of any other shop in the Urban Area of Ambala City. The sale of the adjoining shop, initially occupied by respondent No. 1 for his clinic, would not adversely affect the merits in any manner. The shop was sold in the year 1994, whereas the ejectment petition was filed in the year 2001. Respondent No. 1 sold and vacated the shop housing his clinic on the bona fide belief that he could carry on his clinic at his house and in furtherance of his belief, opened a clinic at his residence. Respondent No. 1 has been compelled to pray for ejectment, as he faces an imminent threat of resumption of his house. The tenant has not denied, whether by pleadings or by evidence, that respondent No. 1 is not in occupation of any commercial premises in the Urban Area of Ambala City and, therefore, as the necessity pleaded is commercial in nature, and as the landlords are not in occupation of any commercial premises in the urban area of Ambala City and have not CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo13 vacated any commercial premises without just cause, they have satisfied the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a) of the Act. The argument, raised with regard to the failure to comply with the statutory ingredients of the Act, must, therefore, fail and the concurrent findings, returned by the learned Courts below, must be upheld. An argument that as the landlords did not disclose the sale of the adjoining shop and other properties, while filing the ejectment petition, would merit dismissal of the ejectment petition for concealment of material facts, cannot be accepted. All material evidence, namely, with respect to the sale of the adjoining shops and the other properties, was adduced before the Rent Controller."

¶20If one carefully reads the judgments passed by the Court in the cases of Manmohan Lal (supra) and Rajiv Gupta (supra), it is apparent that the attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the consistent view of this Court in the judgments referred to above.

¶21As noticed earlier, the 1949 Act does not require any particular form of pleadings and there is no format of the rent petition provided under the 1949 Act. The Court is required to examine the pleadings and the evidence and then find out whether sufficient facts have come on record to prove that the landlord fulfills those ingredients.

¶22In the present case, the petitioner-tenant cannot be heard on the ground of absence of specific pleadings of the ingredients of the Section 13 (3)(a)(ii) of the 1949 Act, because the tenant never took this objection while filing reply. The landlords still complied with the requirements of the 1949 Act, while filing replication. Still further, when the evidence was led, the landlords specifically stated that their son does not own any other property in the urban area concerned. Once in the reply no objection is taken by the tenant, the landlord is deprived of opportunity to amend the pleading. Hence, this Court is of the view that the tenant is estopped from subsequently raising this plea once no objection to this effect has been taken in the reply. CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo14 11(viii). Anotheroaspe&toisothatonoosu&hoob*e&tiono%asoeveroraisedoinotheo%ritten statementobyotheotenantoand,othere ore,oito%ouldonotobeoopeno orotheotenantotoono% raiseothisoob*e&tion.ooThisovie%o%asoalsoota8enobyotheoCoordinateo5en&hoinotheo&ase o oo 7avyugo#oodsoCarrieroversusoMan8reeto"inghoandoanothero -supra/o%ith %hi&ho9oamoinorespe&t uloagreement. 11(ix). 9ohaveogoneothroughotheo*udgmentsoreliedouponobyolearnedo(enior Counselorepresentingotheopetitioner.oo9notheo&aseoo ooState Bank of Patiala versus S.Zulzuaoar Singh Virk and others (supra), a Coordinate Bench took the view that a residential building could not be reconstructed to make a non-residential building and that eviction from a non-residential building could not be sought for a residential purpose. The judgment seems to have been referred since the vice versa would also be true. However, the matter has been dealt with in detail in the preceding paragraphs and for the reasons given therein, the said judgment would not come to the aid of the petitioner. In the case of Manmohan Lal versus Shanti Parkash Jain (supra), a Coordinate Bench, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajit Singh & Anr. Versus Jit Ram & Anr. (supra), held that in the absence of the ingredients as envisaged under Section 13 of the Rent Act, an eviction petition could not succeed. However, in view of the judgment in the case of 7avyugo#oodsoCarrieroversus Man8reeto"inghoandoanothero-supra/,othiso*udgmento%ouldoalsoonoto&omeotoothe aidoo otheopetitioner.oo9notheoremainingo*udgments,oito%asoheldothatoinotheoabsen&eoo ingredients,ogenerally,oasolaidodo%noundero(e&tiono1#oo otheo$entoA&t,oanoevi&tion petitiono%ouldonotosu&&eed.oAsohasobeenodis&ussedoinotheopre&edingoparagraphs,othe ingredientsoo o(e&tiono1#o-#/-a/-i/oo otheo$entoA&to%ereodulyopleadedoinothe CR-3377-2025o(O&M) oooooooooo15 evictionopetitionoasoalsooinotheoaffidavitotenderedoinoexamination-in-chiefoand, therefore,otheoargumentoisodevoidoofomerit. 11(x). Itoisoalsoosettledolawothatoinorevisionalojurisdiction,oconcurrentofindings areonotoliableotoobeodisturbedounlessotheofindingsoareofoundotoobeoperverse.ooThe SupremeoCourtoofoIndia,owhileodecidingowithoaomatterowhereoconcurrentofindings recordedobyotheoCourtoofoRentoControlleroandotheoAppellateoAuthorityohadobeen reversedobyotheoHighoCourtoinorevision,oheldothatoinoexerciseooforevisional jurisdiction,ounlessoaofindingoisoperverse,othereocanobeonoointerference.o Inoviewoofotheoaforesaidodiscussion,otheopresentorevisionopetitionois devoidoofomeritoandotheosameoisoaccordinglyodismissed. Pendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oshallostandodisposedoofoaccordingly.

04.07.2025 o o o o o o o o(VIKRAMoAGGARWAL) mamta oooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooJUDGEo oooooo oooooooooooooo Whetherospeaking/reasonedo Yes/Noo ooooooooooooooooooooooWhetheroReportableo Yes/No o