IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.M. No. 8936-CII of 2024 in/and

C.R. No.4387 of 2019

Gajinder Singh (deceased) through his LRs …Pe44oners

Versus

Bhupinder Singh …Respondent

Reserved on: September 18, 2026

Pronounced on: September 21, 2026

Pronounced fully/opera4ve part : Fully

* * * *

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued By:- THNEGCNOURFPNJABDYU.MPNoDTN.8MN9M33D6MTRH

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN THN-f36N2Uf6NU6AN RHNEfR8f0UN U64la, Advocates,

for respondent No.1.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This order shall dispose of C.R. No. 4387 of 2019, filed by the

9M33D6MTR1.M6U6.RN(legal representaves of the original tenant, late Gajinder

Singh) F6AMTNCMY3D6NnjerSNDoN.8MNgUT7U6UNhTdU6Ne(D6.TDiNDo Rent and

cBfY3D6SNJY.PNns)tN(for short, "the Act"), assailing the Order dated 05.02.2019

passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari,

whereby the appeal preferred against the Order dated 25.03.2014 passed by

the learned Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, allowing the

M:MY.VM6.N9M33D6NDoNTMR9D6AM6.N-DHn1iU6AiDTAPNpURNAismissed. On the very

same date, a composite order was also passed dismisRf64N.8TMMNU99ifYU3D6R

VDBMANd7N.8MN9M33D6MTRNoDTNiMUAf64NUAAf3D6UiNMBfAM6ce.

2. During proceedings of this revision, C.M. No. 8936-CII of 2024

8URNdMM6NaiMANd7N.8MN9M33D6MTRNF6AMTNuTAMTNvnNEFiMN27(1)(aa) read with

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

CMY3D6NnjnNDoN.8MN(DAMNDoN(fBfiNGTDYMAFTMPNnsLbNe,.he Code"), seeking

permission to place on record a photocopy of the TalNmMVU6ANU6AN(DiiMY3D6

Register of Ward No. 6 for the year 2008-09 of Municipal Council, Yamuna

Nagar (Annexure P/29), which is also being taken up and disposed of by this

common order, both having been heard together.

FACTUAL MATRIX

tH /8MNAMVfRMAN9TMVfRMRNoDTVN9UT.NDoNTMRfAM63UiN8DFRe No. 602,

CU6.9FTUNEDUAPN DAMiN/Dp6PN4UVF6UN-U4UTNYD6RfR364NDf two rooms, a

verandha, gallery, kitchen, latrine and bathroom, the southern room abu>ng

and opening towards the south under the stairs, as shown in the site plan

aiMANpf.8N.8MNM:MY.VM6.N9M33D6H

4. The original tenant, Gajinder Singh, has been in DYYF9U3D6NDo

the demised premises since 1982 at a monthly rent of ₹ 250/-, inclusive of

house tax and exclusive of electricity and water charges, under the erstwhile

owners. During the pendency of an earlier round of if34U3D6N(C.R. No. 1409

of 1998, arising from an earlier evicon order against the tenant), respondent

No. 1, who runs Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, purchased the demised house

vide registered sale deed No. 1452 dated 12.06.2007 and got himself

impleaded in the said revision, which came to be allowed on 23.08.2012,

RM’64NURfAMN.8MNMUTifMTNMBfY3D6NDTAMTH

5. On 20.03.2008, respondent No. 1, as the new ownerPNf6R3.F.MA

.8MNM:MY.VM6.N9M33D6NF6AMTNCMY3D6NntNDoN.8MNJY.ND6Nthree grounds: (i) bona

fide personal necessity, on the plea that the accommDAU3D6NUBUfiUdiMN.DN8fV

within the hospital premises had become insufficient on account of

Ml9U6RfD6NDoN.8MN8DR9f.UiPNYD8Udf.U3D6Npf.8N8fRNoU.her-in-law and mother-in-

law, and his desire to reside near the Gurudwara and the market; (ii)

6FfRU6YMNU6AN8UTURRVM6.CNU6ANefffSNYMRRU3D6NDoNDYYF9U3D6Nd7N.8MN.M6U6.NoDT

VDTMN.8U6NoDFTNVD6.8RPNUN4TDF6AN6D.NFi3VU.Mi7N9TMRRed and dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 25.01.2011.

rH D6N.8MNpTfEM6NR.U.MVM6.PNdMRfAMRNYD6.MR364N.8MN4Tounds of

ejectment on merits, the tenant raised a preliminar7NDd:MY3D6N.8U.N.8M

Page 2 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

9M33D6NRF99TMRRMANU6ANYD6YMUiMANVU.MTfUiNoUY.RPNpf.8N9UT3YFiUTNTMoMTM6YM

.DNCMY3D6NntetSeUSefSNDoN.8MNJY.PNp8fY8NTMFFfTMRNUNiU6AiDTANRMM0f64NMBfY3D6NDo

UNTMRfAM63UiNdFfiAf64ND6N.8MN4TDF6ANDoN9MTRD6UiN6MYessity to aver that he is

6D.NDYYF97f64NU6D.8MTNTMRfAM63UiNdFfiAf64Nf6N.8MNFTban area concerned and

has not, without sufficient cause, vacated such a building aGer the

commencement of the Act within that urban area. The tenant furnished

9UT3YFiUTRNDoNRMBMTUiNTMRfAM63UiN9TD9MT3MRNRUfAN.DNdMNf6N.8MNDYYF9U3D6NDo

respondent No. 1 and members of his family — his wife, son, father-in-law

U6ANVD.8MT1f61iUpHND.NpURNUAAf3D6Uii7N9iMUAMAN.8U.N9MTRD6RNDoNRFdR.U63Ui

means are commonly known to invest surplus wealth in real estate at

YD6RfAMTU3D6NiDpMTN.8U6NUY.FUiPNU6AN.8U.NTMR9D6AM6. No. 1 had purchased

the demised house for ₹ 48 lacs though the sale deed was registered for ₹

28,52,000/- only.

7. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed on

07.04.2009:

(1) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of bona

aAMN9MTRD6UiN6MYMRRf.7NDoN.8MN9M33D6MTINuGGHN

(2) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of

6FfRU6YMNU6AN8UTURRVM6.NDoN.8MN9M33D6MTINuGGHN

(3) Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises for the

last more than four months, and if so, its effect? OPP.

evSNO8M.8MTN.8MN9M33D6NfRN6D.NVUf6.Uf6UdiMINuGEHN

ejSNO8M.8MTN.8MN9M33D6MTN8URN6D.NYDVMN.DN.8MN(DFT.Nwith clean hands?

OPR.

erSNO8M.8MTN.8MN9M33D6MTN8URN9iU7MANoTUFANF9D6N.8MNCourt as well as the

respondent? OPR.

(7) Relief.

Page 3 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

8.1 In support of his case, respondent No. 1 – landlord stepped into

.8MNpf.6MRRNdDlNURNGO…NU6ANMlUVf6MAN2U36AMTN-U.8NLUshyap as PW1 and

Vinod Kumar Lamba as PW3, tendering Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

8.2 In rebuEal, the tenant stepped into the witness box as RW8 and

examined seven other witnesses (RW1 to RW7), who are officials, inter alia,

of the office of the Sub-Registrar, the HUDA Estate Office, the local police and

.8MN F6fYf9UiyJRRMRRVM6.NUF.8DTf3MRCNU6AN9iUYMAND6Nrecord, among other

documents - Ex.R1 (order dated 23.08.2012 passed by this Court in C.R. No.

1409 of 1998); Mark R1 and Mark R2 (house-tax assessment forms);

Ex.RW2/A to RW2/C (re-allotment leEers); Ex.RW3/1 (copy of DDR entry

No.15); Ex.RW4/1 to RW4/9 (correspondence, a rent deed dated 03.08.2012,

site plans, the assessment register, and orders relU364N.DN.8MNTMFFfRf3D6NNU6A

RFdRMFFM6.NAM1TMFFfRf3D6NNDoN.8MN9TD9MT.7NU.NclHEOr/1 for housing a judicial

DBYMTP N F6AMT N .8M N gUT7U6U N EMFFfRf3D6 N U6A N JYFFfRf3D6 Nof Immovable

Property Act, 1973); and Ex.RW6/1 to RW6/13 - thirteen registered sale

deeds, spanning from years 2001 to 2013, evidencing purchase of various

fVVDBUdiMN9TD9MT3MRNd7NTMR9D6AM6.N-DHNnNU6ANVMVdMTR of his family.

9. Vide Order dated 25.03.2014, the Ld. Rent Controller took up

Issues No. 1 and 4 to 6 together, as interlinked, and Issues No. 2 and 3

separately, and held as follows: -

• Issues No. 1 and 4 to 6, pertaining to personal necessity, maintainability,

clean hands and fraud, were decided in favour of respondent No. 1-landlord,

by holding that: -

P ,uYYF9U3D6, N U6A N ,Dp6MTR8f9, N UTM N AfR36Y. N YD6YM9.RP Nand mere

Dp6MTR8f9NDoNVFi39iMN9TD9MT3MRNADMRN6D.NAfRM63.iMNU landlord from

RMM0f64NMBfY3D6ND6N.8MN4TDF6ANDoN9MTRD6UiN6MYMRRf.7;

P /8M N 9TD9MT.7 N U. N clHEOryn N R.DDA N TMFFfRf3D6MA N d7 N .8M District

JAVf6fR.TU3D6NoDTNUN:FAfYfUiNDBYMTPNRDN.8U.Nf.RN6D61DYYF9U3D6Nd7N.8M

iU6AiDTANpURN6D.NUNBDiF6.UT7NBUYU3D6N,pf.8DF.NRFBYfent cause";

◦ The property at Ex.RW6/2 was a vacant plot;

Page 4 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

◦ A landlord who has devoted his working life to hisN9TDoMRRfD6NfRNM63.iMA

to live comfortably in a property of his choosing and cannot be compelled

to forgo that choice merely because he owns other pTD9MT3MRPNTMi7f64ND6

Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy, 2001(2) RCR (Rent) 539, and Dr.

Satpal Behal v. Kamla Rani @ Kamlesh Rani, 2008(1) HRR 54;

◦ Even where a landlord owns more than one premises, he cannot be

Ml9MY.MAN6D.N.DNVU6U4MN8fRN9TD9MT3MRNRDNURN.DNMl.TUct maximum benefit

therefrom, and cannot be denied the right to seek possession of the

tenanted premises merely because he owns other propMT3MRC

◦ Non-dependence of family members upon the landlord does not

defeat the claim of personal necessity; and

◦ The plea of evasion of stamp duty/fraud in the purchase of the

demised house was not established, there being no documentary proof

U6AN.8MNYTDRR1MlUVf6U3D6NDoN.8MNBM6ADTNDoN.8MNAMVfRed house not being,

by itself, sufficient, fraud requiring proof to the standard of a criminal

charge.

• Issue No. 2, pertaining to nuisance, was decided against the landlord,

8DiAf64N.8U.NCMY3D6Nnte…SefBSNDoN.8MNJY.NYD6.MV9iU.MRNUNYD636FDFRNYDFTRMNDo

conduct and not a solitary incident, and that mere pu>ng of a lock on the

common entrance does not, without more, amount to any nuisance.

• Issue No. 3 was dismissed as not pressed.

D6N.8MNTMRFi.PN.8MNM:MY.VM6.N9M33D6NpURNUiiDpMANRDiely on the ground of

personal necessity.

10. The tenant preferred an appeal on 26.04.2014. Du ring its

9M6AM6Y7PN.8TMMNRFYYMRRfBMNU99ifYU3D6RNoDTNiMUAf64NUAAf3D6UiNMBfAM6YMNpMTM

moved — on 16.07.2014, 11.12.2018 and 16.01.2019 (Annexures P/1 to P/3),

VUf6i7N.DNRFdR.U63U.MN.8MN9iMUN.8U.NTMR9D6AM6.N-DHN1 – landlord had been

9FTY8URf64NTMRfAM63UiN9TD9MT3MRNURNU6Nf6BMR.VM6.NTUther than out of bona

fide necessity, and to place on record subsequent events, namely, the death,

Page 5 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

AFTf64N.8MN9M6AM6Y7NDoN.8MNif34U3D6PNDoNTMR9D6AM6.NNo. 1's wife, father-in-

iUpNU6ANVD.8MT1f61iUpPNp8DRMNUiiM4MANYD8Udf.U3D6N8Ud itself been pleaded

URNUN4TDF6ANDoNf6RFBYfM6Y7NDoNUYYDVVDAU3D6PNU6AN.8M purchase of a further

TMRfAM63UiN8DFRMNf6N.8MNRUVMNiDYUif.7NBfAMNRUiMNAMMd dated 25.03.2013

(Annexure P/23).

11. By a composite order dated 05.02.2019, the Ld. A ppellate

JF.8DTf.7NAfRVfRRMANUiiN.8TMMNU99ifYU3D6RNoDTNUAAf3onal evidence, and by a

separate Order of the same date, dismissed the appeal by affirming the

finding on Issue No. 1 (personal necessity), reversing the finding on Issue No.

2 (nuisance) and holding that it was proved against the tenant. It was held

that subsequent events are not to be taken into conRfAMTU3D6C N .8U.

Dp6MTR8f9NU6ANDYYF9U3D6NTMVUf6NAfR36Y.NMiMVM6.RPNU6d that fraud cannot

be presumed against a landlord.

12. It is this Order dismissing the appeal, and the composite order

AfRVfRRf64 N .8M N .8TMM N U99ifYU3D6RP N p8fY8 N UTM N fV9F46Md in the present

revision.

13. During the pendency of the present revision, theN9M33D6MTR

8UBMNUAAf3D6Uii7NVDBMA NC.M. No. 8936-CII of 2024, seeking to place on

TMYDTANUN98D.DYD97NDoN.8MN/UlNmMVU6ANU6AN(DiiMY3D6NRegister of Ward No. 6

for the year 2008-09 of Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P/29),

stated to have been obtained, aGer considerable effort, from the Municipal

(DT9DTU3D6PN4UVF6UN-U4UT12U4UA8UTfPNoDiiDpf64N.8MNTMDT4U6fRU3D6NDoN.8M

local civic body. It is averred that the said register shows that for the very

7MUTPNf6Np8fY8N.8MNM:MY.VM6.N9M33D6NpURNf6R3.F.MAPN.pDNRM9UTU.MN9TD9MT3MR

in Ward No. 6 — Property CC No. 2825-07, standing in the name of "Dr.

Bhupinder Gaba", was entered as commercial across four floors; whereas

Property CC No. 2826-07, standing in the name of "Bhupinder Singh Gaba",

pURNM6.MTMANURNTMRfAM63UiNe4TDF6ANU6ANaTR.NSDDTSPNphich, according to the

9M33D6MTRN1NU99ifYU6.RPNfRNf6YD6RfR.M6.Npf.8N.8MN9ieading in paragraph 6 of

.8MNM:MY.VM6.N9M33D6N.8U.N.8MNTMRfAM63UiNUYYDVVDAU3on with the landlord

"is part of hospital", and has bearing directly upon Issue No. 5.

Page 6 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

nvH -MMAiMRR N .D N RU7 N .8U. N UoDTMRUfA N U99ifYU3D6 N fR N BM8emently

opposed by the respondent-landlord.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS/TENANTS

njH NMUT6MANYDF6RMiNoDTN.8MN9M33D6MTRNKNNERNDoNDTf4fnal tenant, in

the wriEen synopsis, has raised, in substance, the oDiiDpf64NYD6.M63D6R5

(i) Scope of interferenceN5NEMi7f64NF9D6N.8MN(D6R3.F3D6NRM6Y8N:FA4VM6.NDo

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpora7on Ltd. v. Dilbahar

Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78, it is submiEed that although the High Court, in the

MlMTYfRMNDoNTMBfRfD6UiN:FTfRAfY3D6NF6AMTNCMY3D6Nnje6) of the Act, is not to re-

appreciate evidence as would a first appellate court, it is nonetheless obliged

.DNRU3Ro7Nf.RMioN.8U.N.8MNa6Af64NTMYDTAMANdMiDpNfRN"according to law" and does

not suffer from any error of law. Reliance is placed on C. Venkata Swamy v.

H.N. Shivanna (D) [SC], Law Finder Doc Id # 939933, and on Deena Nath v.

Pooran Lal, Law Finder Doc Id # 3566 NoDTN.8MN9TD9DRf3D6RN.8U.NuTAMTNvnNEFiM

31 of the Code obliges the appellate court to record, issue-wise, the points

oDTNAM.MTVf6U3D6PN.8MNAMYfRfD6N.8MTMD6NU6AN.8MNTMURons for the decision, and

that failure to apply the statutory provisions to the evidence in proper

9MTR9MY3BMNTM6AMTRN.8MNTMRFi.U6.Na6Af64NBf3U.MANf6Nlaw.

(ii) Alleged pre-determined approach : It is submiEed that paragraph 11 of

.8MNfV9F46MANuTAMTPNp8fY8NDdRMTBMRN .8U.N.8MNif34U3Dn is between "a

qualified doctor" and two legal heirs of the tenant, who are "si>ng lawyers

DoN.8MNmfR.TfY.NRUTNJRRDYfU3D6N4UVF6UN-U4UTPNp8DN8UBMNUV9iMN3VMN.DN9FTRFM

.8MNif34U3D6,NU6ANUTMPNoDTN.8U.NTMURD6PN,TMiFY.U6.Nto vacate the demised

premises", demonstrates that the appeal was approached upon an

impermissible comparison of the social and professiD6UiNR.U.FRNDoN.8MN9UT3MRP

Bf3U364N.8MNfV9F46MANuTAMTND6N.8MN.DFY8R.D6MNDoN,iMgality and propriety"

F6AMTNCMY3D6NnjerSNDoN.8MNJY.H

(iii) Issue No. 1 — Personal necessity : It is contended that the evidence of

GOnN2U36AMTN-U.8NLUR87U9N(Annexure P/20), PW2-landlord (Annexure P/8)

and PW3 Vinod Kumar Lamba (Annexure P/21) was not properly considered;

.8U.N.8MNTMRfAM63UiNUYYDVVDAU3D6N8MiANd7NTMR9D6AM6. No. 1 - landlord's

Page 7 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

wife, son, father-in-law and mother-in-law, cohabitU3D6Npf.8Np8DVNpUR

9iMUAMANURNYD6.TfdF364N.DN.8MNf6RFBYfM6Y7PNpURNiMGNout of reckoning; and

that the death of three of these very family members during the pendency of

.8MNif34U3D6PNRUfAN.DNdMUTNAfTMY.i7ND6N.8MN9iMUNDoNinsufficiency, was wrongly

MlYiFAMANoTDVNYD6RfAMTU3D6H

(iv) Issue No. 2 — Nuisance : It is submiEed that the Appellate Authority

reversed a reasoned finding of the Rent Controller in the tenant's favour

without recording any finding on Annexure P/24 (Ex.RW3/1 — copy of DDR

No.15) or Annexure P/25 (leEer addressed to the SHO), both relied upon by

the tenant to show that it was he, and not the landlord, who was subjected

to harassment.

(v) Issue No. 4 — Maintainability : It is submiEed that the onus to establish

6D61VUf6.Uf6Udfif.7NF6AMTNCMY3D6NntetSeUSefSNDoN.8M Act stood discharged by

the tenant through documentary evidence, including Annexure P/19

(Ex.RW6/1 — sale deed No.6252 dated 22.12.2006 of a house in the same

locality) and Annexure P/11 (Ex.RW4/2 — rent deed showing the same house

iM.NDF. NAFTf64 N.8MN9M6AM6Y7NDoN.8M NM:MY.VM6. N9M33D6), besides other

9TD9MT3MRNeclHEOry…PNEOrytPNEO1…yJPNEO1…yRPNEO1…y(Nand RW6/7 to

EOrynLSNRUfAN.DNdMNf6N.8MNDYYF9U3D6NDoN.8MNiU6AiDTA and his family, of which,

other than Ex.RW6/1 and RW6/2, none has been specifically dealt with by

either court.

(vi) Issues No. 5 and 6 — Clean hands and fraud : It is contended that non-

AfRYiDRFTM N Do N .8M N UoDTMRUfA N 9TD9MT3MRP N YDF9iMA N pf.8 the averment in

9UTU4TU98NnvNDoN.8MNM:MY.VM6.N9M33D6PNU6AN.8MNVU.MTial sought to be

9TDAFYMAN.8TDF48N(H HN-DHNbstr1(DDNDoN…L…vPNf6AfYU364N.8U.NUNTMRfAM63UiNF6f.

AfR36Y.NoTDVN.8MN8DR9f.UiNUiTMUA7NMlfR.MANf6N.8MNiUndlord's name in the very

7MUTN.8MN9M33D6NpURNf6R3.F.MAPNYD6.TUT7N.DN.8MN9iMUded case in paragraph 6

that the residence "is part of hospital", amounts to concealment and

VfRTM9TMRM6.U3D6NDoNBf.UiNoUY.RH

(vii) Effect of leDng-out of a similarly situated house : It is submiEed that

the house reflected in Ex.RW6/1 was repeatedly let out, including under

Page 8 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

TMFFfRf3D6N.DNUN:FAfYfUiNDBYMTNeclHEOvynN.DNEOvysPNAnnexures P/9 to P/17)

U6APNF9D6NAM1TMFFfRf3D6N(Annexure P/22), again came within the disposal of

the landlord, an aspect said to be on all fours with this Court's decision in

Hukam Chand v. Sushma Jindal, 2024 (1) RCR (Rent) 167.

(viii) Adverse inference : It is submiEed that respondent No. 1 - landlord

having failed to examine his wife, son, father-in-law or mother-in-law, an

UABMTRMNf6oMTM6YMNF6AMTNCMY3D6Nnnve4SNDoN.8MND6AfU6 Evidence Act, 1872

ought to have been drawn. Reliance is placed on Dalip Singh v. Jagadev

Singh, 2011(23) RCR (Civil) 167.

(ix) Addi7onal evidence applica7ons : It is submiEed that the three

U99ifYU3D6RN(Annexures P/1 to P/3) were dismissed by the composite order

dated 05.02.2019 without independent reasons on their bearing upon the

grounds of ejectment.

16. On the above grounds, it is prayed that the impugned Order be

set aside and the maEer be remiEed to the Appellate Authority for a fresh,

issue-wise hearing in accordance with law.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO. 1/LANDLORD

17. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, resists the revision

9M33D6NURNpMiiNURN.8MNU99ifYU3D6NoDTNUAAf3D6UiNMBfAence, on the following

main grounds:

(i) Concurrent findings : It is submiEed that both courts below have

concurrently found in favour of the landlord on personal necessity (Issue No.

1), and, before the Appellate Authority, on nuisance (Issue No. 2) as well; and

that such concurrent findings ought not to be lightly disturbed in the limited

TMBfRfD6UiN:FTfRAfY3D6NUBUfiUdiMNF6AMTNCMY3D6NnjerS of the Act.

(ii) Subsequent events and delay : On the plea that the death of family

members ought to have reduced the claimed insufficiency, reliance is placed

on Hukum Chandra v. Nemi Chand Jain, (2019) 13 SCC 363, and D. Sasi

Kumar v. Soundararajan, (2019) 9 SCC 282PNoDTN.8MN9TD9DRf3D6N.8U.NdD6UNaAM

requirement, once established as on the date of ins3.F3D6P N RFdRfR.R

Page 9 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

fTTMR9MY3BMNDoNAMiU7PNU6AN.8U.NAMYif6f64NTMifMoND6Naccount of delay would only

M6YDFTU4MN.M6U6.RN.DN9TD.TUY.Nif34U3D6H

(iii) Ownership dis7nct from occupa7on : It is submiEed that ownership and

DYYF9U3D6NUTMNAfR36Y.NMiMVM6.RPNURN8MiANf6NNRajan Khera v. Ramesh Kumar,

2025(1) RCR (Rent) 215 and that non-disclosure of ownership of other

9TD9MT3MRNfRN6D.NoU.UiPNp8MTMN.8MNiU6AiDTANfRNUdiMNto explain that such

9TD9MT3MRNUTMNF6RFf.UdiMNoDTN.8MN9TD:MY.MANFRMHNEMoerence is made to Suresh

Chand Goyal v. Kali Charan, 2019 (1) RCR (Rent) 391; Naresh Yadav v. Budh

Parkash Tayal, 2023-2-RCR (Rent) 132; and Om Parkash v. Mohinder

Sachdeva, 2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 650. It is submiEed that respondent No. 1 -

iU6AiDTAP N f6 N 8fR N YTDRR1MlUVf6U3D6 N UR N GO…P N Ml9iUf6MA why the other

9TD9MT3MRNpMTMNF6RFf.UdiMNoDTN.8MN9TD:MY.MANTMRfAM63UiNFRMH

(iv) Landlord's choice of residence : It is submiEed that a tenant cannot

dictate to the landlord, where he ought to live, by placing reliance on Delhi

Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2025 AIR CC 3419; and Arjun

Dass v. Smt. Birinder Kaur, 2013 (2) PLR 108.

(v) Compulsory requisi7onN 5ND.NfRNRFdVfEMAN.8U.N.8MNTMFFfRf3D6NDoN.8M

property reflected in Ex.RW6/1 for housing judicial officers, under the

gUT7U6UNEMFFfRf3D6NU6ANJYFFfRf3D6NDoNDVVDBUdiMNGTD9erty Act, 1973, was

compulsory and at the instance of the District Admi6fR.TU3D6CNU6AN.8U.Nf.

YU66D.NdMNMFFU.MANpf.8NBDiF6.UT7NBUYU3D6NDoNUNTMRfAM63UiNdFfiAf64Nd7N.8M

landlord, nor can the property be said to remain "i6NDYYF9U3D6,NDoN.8M

iU6AiDTANAFTf64NTMFFfRf3D6H

(vi) Dilatory conduct : It is highlighted that the Appellate Authority itself

noted, in paragraph 11 that the tenants, being two 9TUY3Rf64NiUp7MTRPN8UA

aiMAN.M6NU99ifYU3D6RNdMoDTMNf.PNf6YiFAf64N.8TMMNoDTNUAAf3D6UiNMBfAM6YMNU6A

have, before this Court as well, filed further appliYU3D6RPNf6AfYU3BMNDo

AfiU.DT7N.UY3YRPN9UT3YFiUTi7N8UBf64NTM4UTAN.DN.8MNUdvanced age of respondent

No. 1 - landlord, who is about 80 years old and has lost his wife during the

9M6AM6Y7NDoN.8fRNBMT7Nif34U3D6H

Page 10 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

ANALYSIS AND REASONING

18. This court has considered submissions made by Ld. Advocates

for both sides made orally as well as by way of wriEen synopsis; and has also

perused the record.

(A) Scope of revisional jurisdic7on under Sec7on 15(6) of the Act :

nsHNNNNNNNNNN CMY3D6NnjerSNDoN.8MNJY.NMV9DpMTRN.8fRNCourt, as revisional

UF.8DTf.7PN.DNRU3Ro7Nf.RMioNURN.DN.8MN,iM4Uif.7NDTNpropriety" of the order or

proceedings under challenge. As explained by the Co6R3.F3D6NRM6Y8NDoN.8M

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpora7on Ltd. v. Dilbahar

Singh (supra), this power is narrower than that of a first appellate court and

ADMRN6D.NMl.M6AN.DNTM1U99TMYfU3D6NDoNMBfAM6YMNoDTNfts own sake. It permits

interference only where, (i) a finding is perverse, (ii) has been arrived at

pf.8DF.NYD6RfAMTU3D6NDoNVU.MTfUiNMBfAM6YMPNefffSNfR based on no evidence or a

misreading of evidence, or (iv) is grossly erroneous to the extent that if

allowed to stand, it would occasion a miscarriage ooN:FR3YMHN

20. Where the courts below have applied the correct legal test,

considered the evidence, and arrived at a possible view, the fact that another

view could also have been taken does not clothe thiRN(DFT.Npf.8N:FTfRAfY3D6

.DNRFdR3.F.MNf.RNDp6NU99TMYfU3D6NoDTN.8U.NDoN.8MNYDurts below, more so

where, as here, the finding on the principal ground DoNMBfY3D6NfRNYD6YFTTM6.H

21. Equally, while Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code requ ires an

appellate court to record, issue-wise, the points fDTNAM.MTVf6U3D6PN.8M

decision thereon and reasons, what the law requiresNfRNRFdR.U63UiPN6D.Nif.MTUi

or mechanical, compliance. Where an Order, read as a whole, reveals that

the appellate authority has applied its mind to each of the controversies

raised and has assigned reasons, howsoever concisely, for the conclusion

reached, the absence of a formally separate discussion of every document or

sub-argument does not, without more, render the finding to be "not

according to law".

Page 11 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

22. It is by keeping in mind the above principles and the restraint

.8U.N.8M7NfV9DT.N.8U.N.8MNYD6.M63D6RNDoN.8MN9UT3MRNare being examined

below.

(B) C.M. No. 8936-CII of 2024 — Applica7on for addi7onal evidence

(Annexure P/29)

23. Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of the Code permits addi3D6UiNMBfAM6YM

at the appellate/revisional stage only where the applicant establishes that,

notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within

his knowledge or could not, aGer due diligence, have been produced earlier.

D.NfRN6D.Nf6.M6AMAN.DN4fBMNUNif34U6.NUNRMYD6AND99DTtunity to fill gaps in the

evidence aGer an unfavourable finding, nor to reopen a concluded record

merely because a document, always available for the asking, was not

summoned at the appropriate stage.

24. The document now sought to be produced is a copy of a public

register maintained by the municipal authority. Such a document was, at all

VU.MTfUiN3VMRPNMFFUii7NUYYMRRfdiMN.DN.8MN9M33D6MTRNd7NVMU6RNDoNUNYMT3aMA

copy applied for from that authority, and no explanU3D6NfRNoDT.8YDVf64NURN.D

why it could not have been obtained during the trial period of 2008 to 2014,

when the very plea of concealment regarding the lanAiDTAQRNTMRfAM63Ui

UYYDVVDAU3D6NpURNUiTMUA7NTUfRMANURNUN9TMifVf6UT7NDd:MY3D6NDTPNU.N.8M

latest, during the pendency of the appeal period of 2014-2019, when three

U99ifYU3D6RNoDTNUAAf3D6UiNMBfAM6YMNpMTMNf6NoUY.NVDBed on cognate grounds.

…jH /8MN9TMRM6.NU99ifYU3D6N8URNdMM6NaiMANf6N…L…vPN7Mars aGer the

appeal itself came to be dismissed, on the general Ml9iU6U3D6N.8U.N.8M

document was obtained "aGer a lot of persuasion" foiiDpf64NTM1DT4U6fRU3D6

DoN.8MNYfBfYNdDA7PNU6NMl9iU6U3D6N.8U.NoUiiRNR8DT.NDf the due diligence, which

.8MN9TDBfRfD6NAMVU6ARPN9UT3YFiUTi7NRf6YMN.8MNYD6YMTned authority was, at all

3VMRPNMFFUii7NU99TDUY8UdiMNd7N.8MN9M33D6MTRH

26. Nor is the document shown to be necessary "to enable the Court

to pronounce Order" within the meaning of Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b). On its

Dp6NR8Dpf64PN.8MNTM4fR.MTNTMYDTARN.8MNYiURRfaYU3D6P for local tax purposes, of

Page 12 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

covered area described as connected with the hospital premises, the entries

standing in the names of "Dr. Bhupinder Gaba" and "Bhupinder Singh Gaba",

dD.8 N AMRYTf93D6R N Do N TMR9D6AM6. N -DH N n N 1 N iU6AiDTAH N J Nmunicipal record

classifying certain covered area within a composite hospital-cum-residence

YDV9iMlNURN,TMRfAM63Ui,NU6AND.8MTNYDBMTMANUTMUNURN,commercial" does not,

without more, establish the existence of a separatePNf6AM9M6AM6.NTMRfAM63Ui

8DFRMNDoN.8MN0f6ANYD6.MV9iU.MANd7NCMY3D6NntetSeUSef) of the Act. if anything,

it sits consistently with, rather than in contradic3D6NDoPN.8MNiU6AiDTAQRNDp6

9iMUAMANYURMN.8U.NUNTMRfAM63UiN9DT3D6NUEUY8MAN.DN.8e hospital exists and has

become insufficient. The document is accordingly not shown to carry the

9TDdU3BMNpMf48.N.8MN9M33D6MTRNUETfdF.MN.DNf.PNU6ANfts exclusion occasions no

prejudice.

27. For the above reasons, C.M. No. 8936-CII of 2024 is dismissed.

(C) The observa7ons in paragraph 11 of the impugned Order

28. Paragraph 11 of the impugned Order passed by the Appellate

JF.8DTf.7NTMYDTARNYMT.Uf6NDdRMTBU3D6RNTM4UTAf64N.8MN9TDoMRRfD6UiNDYYF9U3D6

of two of the tenant's legal heirs, and their "reluctance to vacate" the

AMVfRMAN9TMVfRMRHNCFY8NDdRMTBU3D6RPN9TMoUYf64NU6NfRRFM1pfRMNUA:FAfYU3D6

under a special statute, would have been beEer leG F6RUfAPNRf6YMNCMY3D6Nnt

Do N .8M N JY. N UAVf.R N Do N 6D N YD6RfAMTU3D6 N Do N .8M N YDV9UTU3BM N RDYfUi N DT

9TDoMRRfD6UiNR.U6Af64NDoN.8MN9UT3MRPNU6AN.8fRN(DFT. does not approve of the

VU66MTNf6Np8fY8N.8MNDdRMTBU3D6NfRNYDFY8MAH

29. That, however, is not sufficient, by itself, to vi3U.MN.8MNfV9F46MA

uTAMTHNO8U.NCMY3D6NnjerSNTMFFfTMRN.8fRN(DFT.N.DNMlUmine is the legality and

propriety of the order actually passed, and not merely the felicity of the

iU64FU4MPNf6Np8fY8Nf6YfAM6.UiNDdRMTBU3D6RNUTMNYDFY8ed.

30. The impugned Order does not stop at paragraph 11. It proceeds,

issue-wise, to record findings on personal necessity (paragraph 14),

VUf6.Uf6Udfif.7NU6ANDp6MTR8f9yDYYF9U3D6Ne9UTU4TU98N23), fraud (paragraph

25) and nuisance (paragraph 30), each supported by reference to the

pleadings and the evidence.

Page 13 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

tnH J6NfRDiU.MAPNUBDfAUdiMNDdRMTBU3D6NDoN.8fRN6U.FTM, unconnected

.DN.8MNTMURD6f64N.8U.NUY.FUii7NRF99DT.RN.8MND9MTU3Be findings, does not

establish that the outcome itself was predetermined or that the evidence

was not, in fact, considered on its own merits.

t…H /8fRNYD6.M63D6NfRNUYYDTAf64i7N6D.NUYYM9.MANURNUNground for

RM’64 N URfAM N .8M N fV9F46MA N uTAMTP N .8DF48 N .8M N DdRMTBU3on itself is

disapproved of and should not be understood as bearing upon, or as having

influenced, the analysis that follows.

(D) Issue No. 1 — Personal necessity

33. The finding on personal necessity is supported by the sworn

.MR3VD67NDoNTMR9D6AM6.N-DHNnNKNiU6AiDTANURNGO…PNYDTroborated by PW1 and

GOtPN.DN.8MNMJMY.N.8U.N.8MNTMRfAM63UiNUYYDVVDAU3D6Navailable to him

within the hospital premises i.e., four rooms, one used as a drawing room,

has become insufficient with the expansion of the hospital to more than 100

dMARNU6AN.8MNYD6RMFFM6.N6MMAN.DN8DFRMNoFii13VMNRFT4MD6RPNU6UMR.8M3R.RNU6A

trainee doctors within the hospital complex; that he desires, at an advanced

stage of his career, to live independently of the hospital he has expanded;

and that he wishes to reside near the Gurudwara and market that he is

otherwise aEached to.

34. The law protects this kind of genuine personal requirement. A

landlord is the best judge of his own needs and is M63.iMAN.DNifBMNYDVoDT.Udi7

in a property of his choice, rather than being compelled to accept what the

tenant considers sufficient. Reference may be made to Siddalingamma v.

Mamtha Shenoy, 2001 (8) SCC 561.

35. The circumstance that respondent No. 1 – landlord owns several

D.8MTN9TD9MT3MRNADMRN6D.NAM.TUY.NoTDVN.8fRNa6Af64HNAs correctly held by the

EM6.N(D6.TDiiMTPNDp6MTR8f9NU6ANDYYF9U3D6NUTMNAfR36Yt elements, and a

landlord cannot be denied the right to seek possession of the tenanted

9TMVfRMRNVMTMi7NdMYUFRMN8MNDp6RND.8MTN9TD9MT3MRPN9Tovided he is able to

explain, as respondent No. 1 has, in his cross-exaVf6U3D6PNAD6MNURN.DNp87

.8DRMN9TD9MT3MRNADN6D.NU6RpMTN.8MNRUVMN6MMAHN

Page 14 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

trH /8MN9TD9MT.7NU.NclHEOrynNpURNF6AMTNTMFFfRf3D6NoDr a judicial

DBYMTNF6AMTN.8MNYDV9FiRDT7NUYFFfRf3D6NTM4fVMNDoN.8MNgUT7U6UNEMFFfRf3D6

U6ANJYFFfRf3D6NDoNDVVDBUdiMNGTD9MT.7NJY.PNns)tPNU6A its consequent non-

DYYF9U3D6NYU66D.NdMN.TMU.MANURNUNBDiF6.UT7NBUYU3D6N"without sufficient

cause"; nor can a property placed under such statutDT7NTMFFfRf3D6NdMNRUfAN.D

TMVUf6N,f6NDYYF9U3D6,NDoN.8MNiU6AiDTANoDTN.8MN9FT9DRMRNDoNCMY3D6NntetSeUSefSH

The property at Ex.RW6/2 stands explained as a vacant plot.

t)H /8MN.M6U6.QRN9iMUN.8U.ND.8MTPNF6fAM63aMAN9TD9MT3es (Ex.RW6/3,

RW-2/A to RW-2/C, RW6/7 to RW6/10) also serve the need, is met by the

same general principle applied by the Rent Controller that a person of means,

who is shown to have explained the general paEern of his property holdings

U6A N .8MfT N F6RFf.Udfif.7 N oDT N 8fR N TMRfAM63Ui N FRMP N YU6not be required to

UAAf3D6Uii7N:FR3o7PN9TD9MT.7Nd7N9TD9MT.7PNMBMT7Nf.Mm of a schedule that itself

ADMRN6D.NAfR364FfR8NdM.pMM6N9TD9MT3MRNRUfAN.DNdMNDYcupied by him and

9TD9MT3MRNVMTMi7NDp6MANd7PNDTNR.U6Af64Nf6N.8MN6UVMR of, different family

members.

38. The plea that the death, during the pendency of .8MNif34U3D6PNDo

respondent No. 1's wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law should be treated

as a "subsequent event" reducing the claimed insufficiency, and thereby

AMoMU364N.8MN4TDF6ANDoN9MTRD6UiN6MYMRRf.7PNfRNU6RpMred by two independent

YD6RfAMTU3D6RHN

39. Firstly, it is seEled, as pointed out on behalf of respondent No. 1

by reference to Hukum Chandra v. Nemi Chand Jain (supra) and D. Sasi

Kumar v. Soundararajan (supra) that bona fide requirement, once

MR.UdifR8MANURND6N.8MNAU.MNDoNf6R3.F3D6NDoN.8MN9M33D6PNRFdRfR.RNfTTMR9MY3BM

DoN.8MNAMiU7N.8U.NVU7NDYYFTNf6NUA:FAfYU3D6PNU6AN.8Ut permi>ng a tenant to

AMoMU.NU6NUYYTFMANYUFRMNDoNUY3D6Nd7N9Df6364N.DNY8U6ges of circumstance

DYYFTTf64NAFTf64N.8MN9M6AM6Y7NDoN9TD.TUY.MANif34U3D6NpDFiAND6i7Nf6YM63BfRM

tenants to prolong proceedings.

40. Secondly, and in any event, the need pleaded and proved in this

YURM N fR N 6D. N YD6a6MA N .D N UYYDVVDAU364 N .8M N iU6AiDTAQR NTMiU3BMR N ifBf64

Page 15 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

together. It is, at its core, the landlord's own personal need, to live

independently of an expanding, over 100-bedded hospital, for his own

comfort and convenience, at an advanced stage of his career and life. That

6MMAP N D6 N .8M N iU6AiDTAQR N Dp6 N F6TMdFEMA N .MR3VD67P N RFdsists and is, if

U67.8f64PNF6UJMY.MANd7N.8MNTMAFY3D6Nf6N.8MN6FVdMTNDoNTMiU3BMRNTMRfAf64Npf.8

him. The subsequent events relied upon are not, therefore, shown to have

the direct and material bearing on the very need inNFFMR3D6N.8U.NpDFiA

:FR3o7NUNAM9UT.FTMNoTDVN.8MN4M6MTUiNTFiMH

41. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no in firmity,

pUTTU6364Nf6.MToMTM6YMNf6NTMBfRfD6PNf6N.8MNYD6YFTTMnt finding of the courts

below on Issue No. 1 pertaining to bonafide need of the landlord.

(E) Issue No. 2 — Nuisance

42. The Appellate Authority, being the first appellate forum, was

M63.iMANU6APNf6NoUY.PNTMFFfTMAN.DNTM1U99TUfRMN.8MNMvidence on nuisance and,

on reaching its own conclusion, to reverse the finding of the Rent Controller.

43. The evidence on this issue included the tenant's pu>ng a lock on

the common entrance and parking a vehicle so as to block it, the incident of

19.07.2007 in which abusive language and threats are alleged to have been

FRMANf6N.8MN9TMRM6YMNDoNGOnPNU6AN.8MNf6R3.F3D6PNfVVediately thereaGer, of a

YfBfiNRFf.NoDTN9MTVU6M6.Nf6:F6Y3D6Nd7N.8MN.M6U6.PNfn which interim relief was

declined by the Civil Judge and the tenant's appeal against that refusal was

dismissed, a course of conduct which the Appellate JF.8DTf.7NpURNM63.iMAN.D

BfMpPNYFVFiU3BMi7PNURNVDTMN.8U6NUNRDif.UT7NDTN.TfBfal incident.

44. The tenant's reliance on Annexure P/24, a Daily Diary Report;

and Annexure P/25PNUNiMEMTN.DN.8MNC.U3D6NgDFRMNuBYMTPNADMRN6D.NUi.MT this

9DRf3D6HN/8MRMNADYFVM6.RPNU.NdMR.PNR8DpN.8U.N.8MN.Mnant made his own

complaints against the landlord. They do not controvert or explain away the

landlord's independent evidence — of the lock, the parked vehicle, the

abusive language and threats, and the tenant's own if34U3BMNTMR9D6RMPND6

which the Appellate Authority's reversal is founded.

Page 16 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

45. A first appellate authority is not obliged to record a separate,

line-by-line rebuEal of every document filed by the losing party, where its

a6Af64RND.8MTpfRMNTMR.ND6NUNYD8MTM6.NU99TMYfU3D6NDo the totality of the

MBfAM6YMCNU6ANf.NfRN6D.N.8fRN(DFT.QRNoF6Y3D6PNf6N.8e exercise of revisional

:FTfRAfY3D6NYD6a6MAN.DNiM4Uif.7NU6AN9TD9TfM.7PN.DNTM1pMf48N.pDNYDV9M364

sets of documents against each other, where the appellate authority has

already done so and reached a plausible conclusion.

46. The reversal of the finding on Issue No. 2 by the Appellate

Authority is accordingly not shown to be perverse oTND.8MTpfRMNBf3U.MAPNU6A

does not call for interference in revision.

(F) Issues No. 4 to 6 — Maintainability, clean hands and fraud

47. The tenant's case on these issues rests on two limbs - non-

AfRYiDRFTMNDoN9TD9MT3MRNRUfAN.DNdMNf6N.8MNDYYF9U3D6 of the landlord and his

oUVfi7PNU6ANU6NUiiM4MANVfRTM9TMRM6.U3D6NURN.DN.8MN9rice paid for the demised

8DFRMHN-Mf.8MTPND6NMlUVf6U3D6PNfRNVUAMNDF.N.DN.8MNRtandard required to non-

suit the landlord.

vbH JRN.DN.8MN9TD9MT3MRPN.8MNRMEiMAN9DRf3D6NURNYDTTMctly applied by

.8MNEM6.N(D6.TDiiMTNfRN.8U.NDp6MTR8f9NU6ANDYYF9U3D6NUTMNAfR36Y.PNU6AN.8U.

6D61AfRYiDRFTMNDoNDp6MTR8f9NDoND.8MTN9TD9MT3MRNfRN6ot fatal, where the

iU6AiDTANfRNUdiMN.DNMl9iUf6N.8U.NRFY8N9TD9MT3MRNUTMNF6RFf.MAN.DN.8MNTMRfAM63Ui

use he projects. Suresh Chand Goyal v. Kali Charan (supra) supports this

conclusion.

49. It is also relevant, and weighs against the tenant, that the

9TD9MT3MRNf6NFFMR3D6NpMTMN.8MVRMiBMRNAfRYiDRMANd7N.he tenant in his own

wriEen statement, and the landlord was cross-examined upon them. A

tenant, who has himself placed the material on record and tested the

landlord upon it, cannot in the same breath, complain of concealment or of

having been taken by surprise, as held by this court in Naresh Yadav v. Budh

Parkash Tayal (supra); Om Parkash v. Mohinder Sachdeva (supra).

Page 17 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

jLH /8MN9TD9MT.7NU.NclHEOrynPNf6N9UT3YFiUTPN8UBf64Ndeen the subject

DoNYDV9FiRDT7NR.U.F.DT7NTMFFfRf3D6NoDTN8DFRf64NUN:Fdicial officer, and its rent

deed (Ex.RW4/2, Annexure P/11) having been executed pursuant to, and as

part of, that very statutory arrangement rather than as a voluntary private

le>ng for commercial gain, does not evidence the kind of dealing with the

property "as an investment" that the tenant seeks to draw from it. The

analogy sought to be drawn with Hukam Chand v. Sushma Jindal (supra) is,

D6N.8fRNAfR36Y3D6PN6D.NU99DRf.MH

51. As to the price of the demised house, the plea ooNF6AMTBUiFU3D6

and consequent tax evasion, said to establish fraud, was required to be

proved to the standard applicable to a criminal charge, having regard to the

RMTfDFR6MRR N Do N .8M N UiiM4U3D6H N -D N ADYFVM6.UT7 N MBfAM6ce of the true

YD6RfAMTU3D6PNDTNDoNMBURfD6PNpURN9TDAFYMAPNU6AN.8MNlandlord, in cross-

MlUVf6U3D6PNAM6fMAN.8MNBMT7Na4FTMRN9F.N.DN8fVHN MTM reliance on the market

9MTYM93D6N.8U.N9TD9MT3MRNUTMNDGM6NF6AMTBUiFMANf6NTMgistered sale deeds,

without more, does not discharge that burden. The finding that fraud is not

established, and cannot be presumed against the landlord, does not,

therefore, call for any interference.

j…H /8MN9iMUN.8U.NU6NUABMTRMNf6oMTM6YMNF6AMTNCMY3D6N114(g) of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ought to be drawn against the landlord for not

examining his wife, son, father-in-law or mother-in-law does not assist the

.M6U6.HN/8MNiU6AiDTAQRNDp6NRpDT6N.MR3VD67NURNGO…NYD6R3.F.MRNMBfAM6YM

sufficient in law to establish his personal need, and it is well seEled that it is

not necessary, for a claim of personal necessity to succeed, that every family

member said to be residing with the landlord must independently step into

the witness box. No adverse inference arises merely from the non-

MlUVf6U3D6NDoN9MTRD6RPNp8DRMNMBfAM6YMPNMBM6NfoNiMAP would at best have

dMM6NYDTTDdDTU3BM NDoN UNoUY.P N N .8MNiU6AiDTAQRNDp6N6Med, which stands

otherwise proved.

53. Issues No. 4, 5 and 6 have accordingly been correctly decided in

favour of the landlord, and no ground is made out for interference.

Page 18 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

(G) Applica7ons for addi7onal evidence before the Appellate Authority

(Annexures P/1 to P/3)

jvH /8MN.8TMMNU99ifYU3D6RNVDBMANdMoDTMN.8MNJ99MiiU.M Authority

sought to place on record material said to establish, first, that the landlord

8UA N dMM6 N 9FTY8URf64 N 9TD9MT3MR N UR N U6 N f6BMR.VM6. N TU.8er than out of

necessity, and, second, the subsequent events i.e., the death of family

VMVdMTRNU6AN.8MN9FTY8URMNDoNUNoFT.8MTNTMRfAM63UiN9Toperty (Annexure P/23)

AFTf64N.8MN9M6AM6Y7NDoN.8MNif34U3D6HN

jjH JAAf3D6UiNMBfAM6YMNF6AMTNuTAMTNvnNEFiMN…)NDoN.8M Code is not a

maEer of right, and is to be permiEed only where, it is necessary to enable

the appellate court to pronounce Order, or where its absence would occasion

UNoUfiFTMNDoN:FR3YMHNRD.8NDoN.8MN9FT9DRMRPNoDTNp8fY8N.8MNU99ifYU3D6RNpMTM

moved stand independently answered by the legal posf3D6NAfRYFRRMANUdDBMH

/8MN9UEMT6NDoN.8MNiU6AiDTAQRN9TD9MT.7NUYFFfRf3D6RNpas already before the

Rent Controller by way of Ex.RW6/1 to RW6/13, considered and explained;

and the subsequent events sought to be introduced, even if taken at their

highest, would not, for the reasons already recorded under Issue No. 1, alter

the outcome.

jrH D6N.8MRMNYfTYFVR.U6YMRPNTM:MY3D6NDoNUiiN.8TMMNU99ifYU3D6RNd7NU

common order, without separately discussing each ap9ifYU3D6PNADMRN6D.

YD6R3.F.MNU6NfiiM4Uif.7NpUTTU6364Nf6.MToMTM6YMHN/8MNTMURD6RNoDTNTM:MY3D6NUTM

clear from the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority on merits.

(H) Conduct of the proceedings

j)H D. N 8UR N 6D. N MRYU9MA N 6D3YM N .8U. N .8M N 9TMRM6. N if34U3on has

YD636FMANoDTNYiDRMN.DN.pDNAMYUAMRPN.8U.N.8MN.M6U6.Qs side has, over the

course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority

and this Court, moved a considerable number of applfYU3D6RPNU6AN.8U.

respondent No. 1 – landlord is stated to be an eldeTi7Nif34U6.Np8DN8URPNAFTf64

.8MN9M6AM6Y7NDoN.8fRNBMT7Nif34U3D6PNiDR.N8fRNpfoMHNWhile this Court has not

TM:MY.MA N U67 N YD6.M63D6 N RDiMi7 N D6 N .8fR N 4TDF6AP N U6A N 8as independently

MlUVf6MANMUY8NYD6.M63D6ND6Nf.RNVMTf.RPN.8MNoUY.N.8Ut none of the grounds

Page 19 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

9TMRRMA N fR N oDF6A N .D N AfRYiDRM N U N :FTfRAfY3D6Ui N MTTDTP perversity, or non-

U99ifYU3D6NDoNVf6ANTMf6oDTYMRN.8MNYD6YiFRfD6N.8U.NYD636FMANf6.MToMTM6YM

would only further delay a maEer, in which the subs.U63BMNTf48.RNDoN.8M

9UT3MRNUiTMUA7NR.U6ANYD6YFTTM6.i7NAM.MTVf6MAH

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

58. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no infirmity in

the impugned Order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority, or

in the composite order of the same date, going to the legality or propriety

.8MTMDoNpf.8f6N.8M NVMU6f64 NDoNCMY3D6NnjerSNDoN .8M NJct, save for the

DdRMTBU3D6RNf6N9UTU4TU98NnnN.8MTMDoPNp8fY8NUTMNAfRUpproved of but do not,

oDTN.8MNTMURD6RNR.U.MAPNBf3U.MN.8MND9MTU3BMNa6Af64R.

59. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:

(a) C.M. No. 8936-CII of 2024 is dismissed.

(b) C.R. No. 4387 of 2019 is dismissed. The Order dated 05.02.2019 passed

by the Appellate Authority, and the composite order of the same date

dismissing Annexures P/1 to P/3, are upheld, subject only to the

DdRMTBU3D6N.8U.N.8MNTMVUT0RNf6N9UTU4TU98NnnN.8MTMDo, regarding the

9TDoMRRfD6UiNDYYF9U3D6NDoN.8MN.M6U6.QRNiM4UiN8MfTRP are disapproved of

and shall not be treated as a precedent for the manner of disposal of

similar proceedings.

(c) The Order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, as affirmed

by the Appellate Authority, shall accordingly stand given effect to.

rLH gUBf64NTM4UTAN.DN.8MNiM64.8NDoN3VMN.8MN9M33D6MTR have been in

DYYF9U3D6NDoN.8MNAMVfRMAN9TMVfRMRPNU6ANU.N.8MNRUVMN3VMN.8MNiM64.8NDoN.8fR

if34U3D6PN9M33D6MTRNKN.M6U6.RNUTMNAfTMY.MAN.DN8U6ANover vacant, peaceful

possession of the demised premises to respondent No. 1 – landlord on or

dMoDTMNtLHnnH…L…rPNU6AN.DN9U7yYD636FMN.DN9U7N.8MNUAmiEed rent and other

Y8UT4MRNoDTN.8MNFRMNU6ANDYYF9U3D6NDoN.8MN9TMVfRMRHNh63iN.8M6ND6i7PNYDMTYfBM

R.M9RNf6NMlMYF3D6NDoN.8MNMBfY3D6NDTAMTNR8UiiNTMVUf6 deferred. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Page 20 of 21

C.R. No.4387 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 135624

61.C.R. No. 4387 of 2019 and C.M. No. 8936-CII of 2024 stand disposed of

in the above terms.

r…H JiiN9M6Af64NU99ifYU3D6RPNfoNU67PNR.U6ANAfR9DRMANof accordingly.

September 21, 2026

Sarita

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No

Whether reportable? : Yes/No

Uploaded on: September 21, 2026

Page 21 of 21