Dinesh Kumar @ Naresh Kumar @ Kaka and Others v. Amit Pal

IN T

Dinesh Kumar @ Amit Pal

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

tenants under A findings recorde Gurdaspur, vide by the responde dismissed by the Brief Facts

2.

ejectment petitio

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re

Pro

@ Naresh Kumar @ kaka and Ot VERSUS

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, r. Shiv Charanjit, Advocate and r. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate for r. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate an r. Nimish Gautam, Advocate for -.-

ANNU J. e present civil revision petition Article 227 of the Constitution o ed by both the Courts below, wh e judgment dated 03.10.2019, a nt–landlord, and the appeal pref e learned Appellate Authority vi e facts in brief are that the respo on under Section 13 of the East P

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-5291-2023 (O&M) served on:- 13.10.2025 onounced on:-27.10.2025 thers ....Petitioners ....Respondent EEP PANNU r the petitioners. nd the respondent. has been filed by the petitione of India, challenging the concurr hereby the learned Rent Control allowed the ejectment petition fi ferred by the present petitioners w de judgment dated 20.07.2023. ondent–landlord, Amit Pal, filed Punjab Urban Rent Restriction A

ers– rent ller, filed was d an Act,

1949 for evictio feet, marked as ejectment was s Kumar and No. purchased the registered sale respondent beca petitioners were grounds: firstly, use and occupa Gurdaspur, havi his professional road; secondly respondents No tenants have m fourthly, that re period of four m become unfit an was accordingly premises marked

3.

Up raising prelimin maintainable, an the previous lit on of the petitioners–tenants fro s ABCD in the site plan, situat sought against respondents No. 3 Vipan Kumar. It was averred said shop bearing Private N deed dated 10.08.2018, and by ame landlord of the demised pre e liable to be evicted from the d , that the landlord bona fide req ation, as he is a qualified advoc ing Chamber No.70 in the Lawy l office in the demised shop wh , that respondent No.1 has . 2 and 3 without written conse aterially impaired the value an spondent No. 1 has ceased to oc months without reasonable cause nd unsafe for human habitation, y prayed that the respondents d ABCD in the site plan appende on notice, the respondents appe nary objections that the petition nd that the petitioner had concea igation. On merits, it was deni

om a shop measuring 10 feet × ted on G.T. Road, Gurdaspur. T . 1 Dinesh Kumar, No. 2 Ram d that the respondent–landlord h No.11 from Akash Mahajan v y virtue of the said purchase, mises. It was further stated that demised premises on the follow quires the premises for his perso cate practising at the Civil Cou yers' Chambers, and intends to op hich is suitably located on the m sublet the demised premises ent of the landlord; thirdly, that nd utility of the demised premis ccupy the premises for a continu ; and fifthly, that the premises h being in a dilapidated condition be ordered to vacate the demi ed with the petition. eared and filed a written statem n was barred by res judicata, aled material facts and not disclo ied that the petitioner had beco

mesh had vide wing onal urts, pen main to ses; ous have n. It ised ment not osed

owner of the de between the pa respondent purc had earlier acted filed by one Dr death of Dr. Rav wife of Akash M arising out of th ejectment petiti Gurdaspur, whi petition on the s of the present re

4.

collusive and m the sale deed w Mahajan and A Mahajan, Advo tenants. All the need, subletting premises. The te

5.

Fro the following iss

¶1req emised shop or that any relation arties. It was alleged that one chased the shop, is an advocate d as counsel for respondents No . Ravinder Kumar against them vinder Kumar, his legal heirs sol Mahajan, who got herself implea hat case. Later, Akash Mahajan p ion against respondent No.1 be ich was subsequently withdraw same cause of action. Thereafter espondent–landlord, Amit Pal. e tenants, therefore, alleged th ala fide, executed only with a vi was a sham transaction. It was Amit Pal were junior advocates ocate, and were using the sale grounds of eviction were speci g, material impairment, non-o enants prayed that the ejectment om the pleadings of the parties, sues for determination: Whether the applicant requir quirements? OPA

nship of landlord and tenant exis Akash Mahajan, from whom e practising in the same courts a o. 2 and 3 in an ejectment petit . It was further stated that after ld the shop to Mrs. Rupali Mahaj aded as party in appeal proceedi purchased the property and filed efore the learned Rent Control wn without liberty to file a fr r, he executed a sale deed in fav hat the said sale transaction w ew to secure their eviction, and t s further alleged that both Ak practising together under Sh. S e deed to defeat the rights of ifically denied, including bona f occupation, and unfitness of petition be dismissed with costs the learned Rent Controller fram res the demised shop for bona f

sted and tion jan, ngs d an ller, resh vour was that kash S.P. fide . med

¶2wit

3.

¶4pre and

¶5dila

6.

7.

¶8Cou

9.

6.

In o AW1, and ther certified copies

7.

On No.1 Dinesh Ku for the responde Findings of the

8.

parties and proc recorded on th Whether the respondent h thout the permission of the landlo Whether the respondent has demised premises? OPA Whether the respondents ha emises for a continuous period o d sufficient cause? OPA Whether the demised premi apidated condition? OPA Whether the ejectment petitio Whether the present applicat Whether the applicant has co urt? OPR Relief. order to prove his case, the petiti reafter his learned counsel clo of sale deeds Ex. A3 to Ex. A5. n the other hand, to rebut the evi umar appeared as RW1, and afte ents closed the evidence on behal e learned Rent Controller e learned Rent Controller there ceeded to decide the issues frame e issues, particularly Issue No

has sublet the demised premi ord? OPA s empaired the value and utility ave ceased to occupy the demi of four months without reasona ises is unfit and unsafe being i on is barred by res judicata? OP tion is not maintainable? OPR oncealed the material facts from ioner–landlord examined himsel osed the evidence after tender idence of the petitioner, respond er his statement, the learned coun lf of all respondents. eafter heard the arguments of ed as above. In view of the findi o. 1 regarding bona fide perso

ises y of ised able in a R f as ring dent nsel ngs

requirement, wh respondents to Controller concl fide need for per

9.

Con respondents–ten demised premis Findings of the

10.

entire material o irregularity or p The Appellate appellants-tenan the demised sh advocate's offi requirement of as that of an a necessity under 1949.

11.

landlord and ten law upon the pu registered sale d erstwhile owner hich was decided in favour of th establish any of their prelimin luded that the petitioner–landlor rsonal occupation of the demised nsequently, the ejectment p nants were directed to vacate es to the petitioner within the pe e Appellate Authority e learned Appellate Authority, on record and the evidence led perversity in the judgment rende Court considered in detail th nts that the profession of a lawy hop could not be got vacated f ice. This contention was reje a landlord for setting up his off advocate, falls squarely within Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East P e Appellate Authority further nant between the parties had co urchase of the demised premise deed dated 10.08.2018 executed r. It was held that a tenant is prec

he petitioner, and the failure of nary objections, the learned R rd had successfully proved his bo d shop. petition was allowed, and and hand over possession of riod prescribed by law. Gurdaspur, while reappraising by the parties, found no illegal red by the learned Rent Control he plea raised on behalf of yer is not a business and therefo for the purpose of establishing ected on the reasoning that fice for professional purposes, su the ambit of bona fide perso Punjab Urban Rent Restriction A observed that the relationship ome into existence by operation es by the respondent-landlord v d by Advocate Akash Mahajan, cluded from denying the title of

Rent ona lity, ller. ore, an uch onal Act, of n of vide

landlord under appellants could the respondent-benami was hel that even if both not render the t colleague from association.

12.

Rel Bhalla, 2011 (1)

(3) RCR (Civil) requirement of bona fide need. eviction of his t the landlord is th shop, being loca the respondent's

13.

It w appreciated the fide personal re issues were also merit and was d

Section 116 of the Indian Ev d not challenge the validity of the -landlord. The contention that d to be baseless and unsupporte h the vendor and vendee happene transaction illegal or mala fide. another cannot be doubted me lying upon precedents includin ) RCR (Rent) 90 and Ashok Kum l) 888, the learned Appellate A premises for establishing his pr It was emphasized that no law p tenant from a non-residential bui he best judge of his requirement ated on the G.T. Road and easily s professional needs. was thus concluded that the le evidence in allowing the ejectm equirement. The findings recorde o affirmed. Consequently, the ap dismissed, thereby upholding the

vidence Act, 1872, and hence e said sale deed or the ownership the sale transaction was sham d by evidence. The Court observ ed to be lawyers, that by itself d . The purchase of property by o erely on conjecture or professio ng Ram Saroop v. Desh Band mar Jain v. Lachhman Dass, 20 Authority held that an advocat rofessional office is a genuine a prohibits an advocate from seek ilding for professional use, and t t. The Court noted that the demi y accessible, was indeed suitable earned Rent Controller had righ ment petition on the ground of bo ed by the Rent Controller on ot ppeal was found to be devoid of a ejectment order in its entirety.

p of m or ved does one onal dhu te's and king that ised for htly ona ther

Submissions of

14.

Lea that the learned ejectment petitio that the respon premises cannot the scope of Se 1949. It is furth bona fide need f Court Complex the tenants from transaction betw respondent–land had earlier been submitted that A against the petit the alleged sale according to the tenants under t transaction was tenants, in viola his earlier coun below suffer fro f learned counsel for the Partie arned counsel for the petitioners– d Courts below have committe on on the ground of bona fide r ndent–landlord is an advocate t be said to be required for any b ection 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East P her urged that the respondent has for the demised shop, as he alre , Gurdaspur, and hence there w m the shop in question. Counsel ween the vendor, Advocate A dlord is tainted with mala fides, n working together as juniors un Advocate Akash Mahajan had tioners, which was withdrawn on e deed in favour of the presen e learned counsel, indicates a cle the garb of a new ownership. sham and merely a paper arran ation of the fiduciary relationsh sel. Learned counsel thus praye om perversity and illegality and d

es –tenants has vehemently contend ed a serious error in allowing requirement. It has been submit by profession and therefore, business purpose so as to fall wit unjab Urban Rent Restriction A s failed to establish any genuine eady has his chamber in the Dist was no necessity to seek eviction l has also contended that the en Akash Mahajan, and the pres as both are practicing lawyers a nder the same senior advocate. I earlier filed an ejectment petit n 10.08.2018, and on the same d nt respondent was executed. Th ear collusion and design to oust It is further urged that the s ngement to facilitate eviction of hip existing between the tenant a d that both the orders of the cou deserve to be set aside.

ded tted thin Act, e or trict n of ntire sent and It is tion ate, his, said and

15.

Per the concurrent purchased the

10.08.2018 (Ex and landlord of Indian Evidence his landlord, and the sale deed wa respondent is a demised premis convenient and Gurdaspur. It is an advocate fro office, and suc necessity. Coun 2011 (1) RCR RCR (Civil) 888 for setting up an is further submi fraud between th valid considerat the same profes revision petition

r contra, learned counsel for the findings of the courts below. I demised shop by way of a .A-2) for valid consideration, a f the premises. It is further arg e Act, a tenant in possession is e d therefore, the petitioners are p as sham or benami in nature. Th a qualified and practicing advo ses for establishing his professi d accessible for his clients, b further argued that the law does m seeking eviction of a tenant ch a requirement falls within nsel relies on the judgments in R

(Rent) 90, and Ashok Kumar 8, to contend that an advocate's n office is a genuine and recogn itted that there is not an iota of he vendor and vendee, and the s tion cannot be termed as sham m sion. Learned counsel therefore n being devoid of any merit.

respondent–landlord has suppor It is submitted that the respond duly registered sale deed da and has thereby become the ow ued that under Section 116 of estopped from disputing the title precluded from raising the plea t he learned counsel contends that ocate who genuinely requires onal office, which would be m eing situated on the G.T. Ro s not prohibit a professional such for the purpose of establishing the ambit of bona fide perso Ram Saroop v. D. Bandhu Bha Jain v. Lachhman Dass 2008 need for a non-residential premi nized requirement under rent law f evidence to establish collusion sale deed having been registered merely because the parties are fr prayed for dismissal of the pres

rted dent ated wner e of that more oad, h as his onal alla

(3) ises w. It n or for rom

Findings of this

16.

Aft learned counsel and material av present revision

17.

It is demised premis from the previo proved on recor registered sale d specifically chal petitioners have producing any c fraudulent. Mer fact that both th render the trans of the same pro petition by the same date, thou sale was a fraud positive evidenc property after th

18.

In assumes signific s Court ter giving thoughtful considera l for the parties, and on an inde vailable on record, this Court i n petition is wholly devoid of mer s an undisputed fact that the resp ses by way of a registered sale ous owner Advocate Akash Ma rd and has not been set aside b deed carries with it a presumption llenged and declared void, its leg e merely made bald allegations o cogent evidence to substantiate t re suspicion, however strong, ca he vendor and vendee happen to saction illegal, as the law does n ofession from transacting inter vendor on 10.08.2018 and the ugh a coincidence, by itself can dulent device to oust the tenant ce to show that the vendor retai he sale. this context, Section 116 of cance. It is a well-settled princi

ation to the rival submissions ependent appraisal of the evide is of the considered view that rit. pondent–landlord has purchased e deed dated 10.08.2018 (Ex.A ahajan. The sale deed stands d by any competent court of law n of validity, and unless the sam gal sanctity cannot be doubted. T of collusion and mala fides with the claim that the sale was sham annot take the place of proof. T o be practicing advocates does not prohibit colleagues or memb se. The withdrawal of the ear execution of the sale deed on nnot lead to the conclusion that ts, especially in the absence of a ined possession or control over the Indian Evidence Act, 18 iple that a tenant, who has ente

of nce A-2) duly w. A me is hout m or not bers rlier any 872,

into possession landlord's title d public policy, i relations betwee occupy the dem of the respond Controller was title, and this Co

19.

As established thro advocate at Gu Complex. His a suitable and con has not been reb that the respond the same localit that the landlord manner in which this regard can b Bhalla (supra), setting up his o the Rent Act.

20.

Thi tainted or mala n of premises under a landlord during the continuance of his ten intended to preserve the sanct en landlord and tenant. The petit mised shop as tenants, are therefo dent-landlord derived from a thus correct in declining to en ourt finds no reason to differ. regards the bona fide requirem ough evidence that the respond urdaspur, presently holding Cha assertion that the demised shop nvenient for client access and for butted by any credible evidence. dent is in possession of any alte ty, nor that the requirement plead d is the best judge of his own ne h he should utilize his property be placed on the principle laid d , where it was held that the req ffice is a genuine and bona fide is Court also finds that the resp fide merely because the premise

d, is estopped from denying t nancy. This principle is founded tity of contractual and possess tioners, who admittedly continue ore estopped from disputing the t registered conveyance. The R ntertain this collateral challenge ment of the respondent, it is w dent is a qualified and practic amber No.70 at the District Co situated on the G.T. Road is m r establishing an independent off The petitioners have neither sho ernative non-residential premises ded is fanciful or illusory. It is t eds and the court cannot dictate or satisfy his necessity. Reliance down in Ram Saroop v. D. Band quirement of a landlord–lawyer e need within the contemplation ondent's need cannot be termed es were recently purchased. It is

that d on sory e to title Rent e to well cing ourt more ffice own s in trite e in dhu for n of d as

uncommon for use, and such a requirement is n occupy. On a c stands establishe of establishing transaction.

21.

It w initially purchas was engaged as certain litigation the said counse also a practisin conduct of the ethics governin interest of his cl the subject mat existed at the sta in favour of th petitioner himse colourable devi case, would lie transaction, but the tenants and a purchaser of tenanted proper an act, in itself, does not eviden not the duration of ownership but cumulative appreciation of the ed that the respondent purchased his professional office and n was further contended by the ten sed by one Advocate Akash M counsel by respondents No.3 an n concerning the same premise l sold the very property to the p ng advocate. Assuming this fac vendor would undoubtedly be ng an advocate, for an advocat lient and not to acquire, either d tter of his client's litigation. H age of purchase, it would not, ip he petitioner void or unenforce elf was a party to such unethical ce intended to defeat the tenan e by seeking appropriate declar the mere existence of such prio their counsel does not, by itsel

rty to seek possession for perso nce bad faith. The test of bona f t the genuineness of the intention oral and documentary evidence d the demised shop for the purp not as a speculative or colora nants that the demised property w Mahajan, who, at the relevant tim nd 4 (the tenants) in connection w s, and that immediately thereaf present petitioner–landlord, who ctual position to be correct, su inconsistent with the professio e is expected to act solely in directly or indirectly, any interes However, even if such impropri so facto, render the subsequent s eable unless it is proved that design or that the transaction wa nts' rights. The remedy, in suc ratory relief against the impugn or professional relationship betw f, invalidate the title acquired b

onal fide n to e, it pose able was me, with fter, o is uch onal t in iety sale as a h a ned ween

bona fide purch the contention a the legal conseq the bar of his consideration is

22.

stands rejected consideration w property after t witness testimo transaction lack professional pro to proof of frau place of proof, and conjectures. Conclusion

23.

Acc successfully est personal and p substantiate the courts below on and do not su interference in r haser for value under a registere as to the professional linkage be quence would not be the nullifica s right to seek eviction, unle affirmatively proved on record. e plea of mala fide collusion be d. There is not a shred of was fictitious or that the vendor c the sale. No material such as ny has been produced by the p ked substance. The entire de oximity between two lawyers, w ud. It is well settled that suspicio and a duly registered sale deed . cordingly, this Court holds t tablished his bona fide requirem professional use and that the eir plea of mala fide collusion n these aspects are well reasone uffer from any illegality, irreg revisional jurisdiction.

ed sale deed. Thus, even accept etween the vendor and the tenan ation of the landlord's ownership ess collusion, fraud, or want etween the vendor and vendee a evidence showing that the s continued to derive benefit from bank record, correspondence, petitioners to demonstrate that fence rests upon conjecture a which cannot, by itself, be eleva on, however grave, cannot take cannot be invalidated on surmi that the respondent–landlord ment for the demised shop for petitioners–tenants have failed or sham sale. The findings of ed, supported by law and eviden gularity, or perversity warrant

ting nts, p or of also sale or and ated ises has his d to nce,

24.

For the tenants are l Rent Controller stands dismissed

25.

Pen

October 27, 202 tripti

Whether

Whether r the reasons stated above, this C liable to be evicted from the dem r affirmed by the Appellate Auth d being devoid of any merit. nding application(s), if any, also

speaking/non-speaking : Speaking reportable : Yes/No

Court is of the considered view t mised shop as per the decree of hority. The Civil Revision Petit stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE

that