Sandeep Gupta vs Arun Gupta

----
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M)
Sandeep Gupta ......... Petitioner/Tenant
Versus
Arun Gupta ....... Respondent/Landlord
1 The date when the judgment was reserved 11.08.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 05.11.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 11.11.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Argued By:- Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner-tenant.
Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the respondent-landlord.


HARKESH MANUJA, J.
By way of present revision petition filed under Section 15(6) of
the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “the 1973 Act” ) challenge has been laid to the orders dated
28.02.2018 & 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Panchkula
& Appellate Authority, Panchkula respectively, whereby an eviction petition
preferred at the instance of respondent-landlord qua demised premises i.e.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -2-
one room shed of Industrial Plot No. 323, Phase-I, Industrial Area,
Panchkula, was allowed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant
against the same was dismissed.
[2] The records have been perused. For the sake of convenience,
the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Rent Petition.
FACTS
[3] Briefly stating, Sh. Arun Gupta, the landlord, preferred an
ejectment petition under Section 13 of the 1973 Act against the tenant-Sh.
Sandeep Gupta, with regard to one room/shed shown in red colour in the site
plan of Industrial Plot No. 323, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Panchkula which
was stated to have been let out w.e.f. 15.05.2002 vide rent deed dated
07.05.2002. It was alleged that the tenant had failed to pay rent w.e.f.
01.08.2009 at the rate of Rs. 14,500/- per month and had also failed to pay
house tax amounting to Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The landlord further pleaded that he
was running an industry for manufacturing railway parts from rented Plot
No. E-135, Phase-VII, Mohali and desired to shift his business from Mohali
to his own premises at Industrial Plot No. 323, Phase-I, Industrial Area,
Panchkula. Accordingly, he sought eviction of the tenant, inter alia , on the
grounds of non-payment of rent and his personal and bona fide requirement
of the premises.
[4] Upon appearance, the petitioner contested the petition and,
inter alia , pleaded that the landlord had concealed his interest in Industrial
Shed No. 312, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula; that the open area
adjoining the shed had also been in his possession as a tenant since the year
2004, so that the petition sought only partial eviction; and that the need
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -3-
projected by the landlord was not bona fide.
[5] From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the learned Rent Controller on 20.12.2014:-
“ 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the
tenanted premises on the ground of non-payment of rent, if
so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is in the bonafide requirement of the
tenanted premises for his personal use and occupation?
OPP
3. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean
hands, if so, its effect? OPR
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present
form? OPR
5. Whether the petition is false and frivolous and is liable to
be dismissed with special costs? OPR
6. Relief.”
[6] The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 28.02.2018
accepted the petition filed at the instance of respondent-landlord and ordered
eviction of petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide
requirement. Issue No.1 was disposed of as not pressed, the landlord having
stated on 07.12.2017 that he did not press the ground of non-payment of
rent, whereas Issue Nos.2 to 5 were decided in favour of the landlord. On the
claim of the tenant for refund of excess rent, the landlord was held liable to
refund, along with interest, the rent received by him for the periods w.e.f.
November 2012 to 28.02.2014 (through account payee cheques) and w.e.f.
15.01.2012 to 15.03.2012 (through receipts).
[7] Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal (RA
No.2 of 2018) and the respondent-landlord filed cross-objections (RA No.7
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -4-
of 2018) for setting aside the finding holding him liable to refund the excess
amount. Both were dismissed vide common judgment dated 31.08.2023 by
the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula, thereby upholding the order of
eviction passed against the petitioner-tenant and granting him three months
to hand over vacant possession. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition
has been preferred.
CONTENTION(S):
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-TENANT
[8] Impugning the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Rent
Controller and Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant
submitted that the factum of another property bearing Industrial Shed No.
312, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula, owned by the wife of respondent-
landlord, of which the landlord happened to be a power of attorney holder
was never disclosed in the eviction petition, especially when the respondent-
landlord himself was receiving the rent from the tenants over the said
property and thus on the basis of concealment of material fact, the eviction
petition was liable to be dismissed.
[8.1] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
present was a case of a partial eviction and thus the eviction petition
preferred at the instance of the respondent-landlord was liable to be
dismissed. He contended that though two separate portions of one premises
were rented out in favour of the petitioner-tenant at two different points in
time i.e. in the year 2002 and in the year 2004 respectively, however, since
the landlord was being paid one composite rent for both the portions, the
present was a case of one common tenancy and as such, the partial eviction
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -5-
prayed for by the respondent-landlord from a part thereof was not
permissible in law, particularly when in the decision dated 16.05.2016
(Exhibit R-1) passed by the learned Executing Court on the objections
preferred by the petitioner-tenant in separate execution proceedings, factum
of his tenancy over both the portions i.e. the shed as well as the open area
was duly proved and recorded. Learned counsel also contended that the 1973
Act contains no provision permitting eviction from a part of the tenanted
premises and, therefore, a single tenancy for which one composite rent was
being paid could not be split.
[8.2] Learned counsel further contended that during pendency of the
present eviction proceedings, the respondent-landlord admittedly got other
portions of premises No. 323, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula vacated,
but never occupied them, which clearly reflects that the need expressed by
the respondent-landlord was never genuine and bona fide , especially when
he never deposed that the portions of which he got possession from the other
tenants were not sufficient to fulfil his need.
[8.3] Further, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the
given facts and circumstances and also on the material available on record,
the bona fide need of the respondent-landlord was never established, as the
only ground taken in the eviction petition was that the landlord wanted to
shift his business from Mohali premises to Panchkula premises, however,
during the evidence, it was brought on record that the business run by the
respondent-landlord from Mohali premises was shut down and he never
produced any record reflecting that there was any need to shift the said
business to Panchkula.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -6-
[8.4] Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once
the ground of non-payment of rent was given up by the respondent-landlord,
the arrears tendered by the petitioner-tenant pursuant to the assessment of
provisional rent were required to be refunded to him.
No other point was raised.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-LANDLORD
[9] Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent contended that
the orders passed by the learned Authorities below being based on proper
appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, call for no
interference.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING
[10] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book / record, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s)
made on behalf of the petitioner-tenant.
S COPE OF R EVISIONAL J URISDICTION
[11] Before adverting to the contentions, it is necessary to notice the
scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(6) of the
1973 Act. In Vaneet Jain v. Jagjit Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 1 , which arose out
of an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the same Act, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under:-
"4. Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act empowers the High Court
to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying
itself if an order passed by the Rent Controller or the appellate
authority is in accordance with law. The question that arises for
consideration is whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction
can reassess or re-evaluate the evidence only to come to a different
finding than what has been recorded by the Court below. This Court
in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -7-
(6) SCC 222 held, that the High Court cannot enter into
appreciation or reappreciation of evidence merely because it is
inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of
facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the
Rent Controller on the touchstone of whether such an order is in
accordance with law. For that limited purpose the High Court would
be justified in reappraising the evidence. In Sarla Ahuja v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998 (8) SCC 119, it was held that the
High Court while exercising the jurisdiction can reappraise the
evidence only for a limited purpose for ascertaining as to whether
the conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly
unreasonable.
5. A perusal of sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act shows that the
power of the High Court to revise an order is not an appellate
power, but it is also true that it is not akin to power exercisable
under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is no
doubt true that the High Court would be justified in interfering with
the order passed by the appellate authority if the legality or
propriety of such order demands such interference. We are,
therefore, of the view that it is not permissible for the High Court to
reassess or reappraise the evidence to arrive at a finding contrary to
the finding of fact recorded by the Court below..."
[11.1] The Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 while examining the
revisional provisions of the Rent Control Acts, including Section 15(6) of
the 1973 Act, held as under:-
"45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts
entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded
by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on
reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the
Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the
evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these
Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the
Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from
any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority
below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of
the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or
misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to
stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to
correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In
that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction
under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -8-
impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is
entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any
decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However,
to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of
the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not
exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess
the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional
power is not and cannot be equated with the power of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.
Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is
according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before
it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity."
[11.2] Thus, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to
arrive at a finding different from the concurrent findings of the Authorities
below, unless those findings are perverse, based on no evidence or on a
misreading of the evidence, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The
contentions of the petitioner are examined in this light.
P LEA O F P ARTIAL E VICTION
[12]
The plea that the eviction sought is only a partial eviction of the
tenanted premises is meritless. The learned Authorities below concurrently
found that the tenancy was created under the rent agreement of the year 2002
(Mark A), the execution of which was admitted by the petitioner. It was in
respect of the hall shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.P1, described in
the agreement as measuring 20 x 43 feet, at a monthly rent of Rs.4,250/-
with a stipulation for a 5% increase. The petitioner claims that the open area
shown in pink colour in Ex.R8 also formed part of his tenancy. The landlord
admitted his possession over the open area, though he termed it illegal. The
question, therefore, is not one of possession but whether the open area
formed part of the tenancy. It is for the party pleading partial eviction to
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -9-
establish that the portion left out of the eviction petition forms part of the
same tenancy, and the burden in the present case thus lay on the petitioner.
[13] The petitioner primarily relied upon the order dated 16.05.2016
(Ex.R1), passed by the learned Rent Controller, Panchkula on his objections
under Order 21 Rules 98 to 101 and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 in the execution titled ‘Arun Gupta vs. Sohan Puri’ . In the said order, it
was held that he had been in possession of the open area as a tenant of the
landlord since the year 2004. The said order, however, has been set aside in
appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment
dated 31.05.2024 and the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against it,
ESA No. 39 of 2024, is pending before this Court. The petitioner, therefore,
cannot draw support from Ex.R1, which stands set aside, the matter being
sub judice before this Court.
[14]
Even assuming arguendo that Ex.R1 is accepted at its highest,
the plea would not succeed. For the eviction to be partial, the petitioner had
to establish that the hall and the open area formed one tenancy, that is, that
the tenancy created in the year 2002 was modified to take in the open area.
No such modification was proved and the petitioner himself admitted that no
rent note was executed after the year 2002. Nor was the question whether the
hall and the open area constituted a single tenancy in issue before the learned
Executing Court. It proceeds on the basis that the written agreement related
to the hall and treats the letting of the open area as a subsequent event not
forming part of that agreement. It infers that an additional portion was let out
in the year 2004, chiefly for the increase in rent from Rs.4,250/- to
Rs.8,000/- per month. At best, therefore, the open area would be the subject
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -10-
of a later and separate letting. Where there are two tenancies of separate
portions, the landlord may seek eviction under each of them and the eviction
would be partial only if a single tenancy were split. In Habibunnisa Begum
v. G. Doraikannu Chettiar, (2000) 1 SCC 74 , the Hon’ble Apex Court ob-
served the following:
“2. The only question that arises in this case is as to whether it was open to
the High Court to split the single tenancy by ordering partial ejectment of
the tenant from the premises let out to him. In S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand,
1968(1) SCT 536 , it was held that where a contract of tenancy was a single
indivisible contract and in the absence of any statutory provision to that
effect, it is not open to the Court to split the tenancy. Law, therefore, is that
where there is a single indivisible contract of tenancy, it cannot be split by
a Court unless there is statutory provision to that effect…….”
[14.1] The protection claimed by the petitioner thus presupposes
a single indivisible tenancy covering both the hall and the open area, which,
as noticed above, has not been proved. His reliance on the absence of a
provision for partial eviction in the 1973 Act is, therefore, misplaced. The
mere fact that rent may thereafter have been paid for both portions in a
composite manner does not, in the facts of the present case, by itself
establish that the open area formed part of the tenancy created under the
agreement. The present petition, being confined to the premises let out under
that agreement, is therefore not one for partial eviction. Nothing observed
herein shall, however, be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits
of ESA No. 39 of 2024 pending before this Court.
[15]
Moreover, apart from Ex.R1, no other document produced by
the petitioner shows that the open area was let out to him. The photographs,
insurance cover notes and balance sheets at best show his possession over
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -11-
the open area and the rent paid by him. As noticed by the learned Rent
Controller, the petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that, except for
the hall, there was no document of his tenancy and that he took possession of
the open area in the year 2004-2005 under a mutual understanding which
was never reduced to writing. His site plan Ex.R8, on his own admission, is
the only document to show the area claimed by him, does not bear the
signatures of the landlord. The learned Authorities below thus rightly held
that the landlord’s admission of possession did not make the petitioner a
tenant of the open area, the legality of such possession being a matter for a
civil suit. The plea of partial eviction, therefore, fails and the concurrent
finding on this aspect suffers from no infirmity.
B ONA F IDE N ECESSITY
[16] The principal challenge to the bona fide requirement is founded
upon the fact that the respondent-landlord stated in the eviction petition that
he was running an industry from rented premises at Mohali and desired to
shift it to Panchkula, whereas in his cross-examination recorded on
18.02.2017, he stated that the said business had since been closed. The
closure of the business at Mohali cannot, by itself, negate the bona fide
requirement of the respondent. The requirement pleaded was not merely to
continue an existing business at the same scale and in the same form, but to
shift and establish his business activity in his own premises at Panchkula.
The learned Authorities below found that the landlord deposed that he is in
the business of manufacturing and wants to carry on and expand his business
in his own premises. It was also noted that he constructed a residential house
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -12-
at Pinjore, from which Panchkula is the nearest place and that the demised
premises were required for his business at Panchkula.
[17] The bona fide requirement of a landlord has to be judged as on
the date on which the eviction petition is filed. In Maria Martins v. Noel
Zuzarte 2026 (1) RCR(Rent) 619 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-
“8. In this context, we are also guided by the principle laid down by this
Court in Maganlal son of Kishanlal Godha v. Nanasaheb son of
Udhaorao Gadewar CA No.6125/2008 decided on 16.10.2008 . While
dealing with a landlord-tenant dispute, it was held that the adjudication of
bonafide need should be done as on the date when the suit for eviction was
filed, unless some subsequent event materially changes the ground of relief.
It was further held that subsequent events may be considered to have over-
shadowed the genuineness of the landlord's requirement only if they are of
such nature and dimension as to make it lose its significance altogether.
This Court observed as under:
"17. In Pratap Rai Tanwani v. Uttam Chand [(2004) 8 SCC 490] , it
was held that the bona fide requirement of the landlord has to be
seen on the date of the petition and the subsequent events intervening
due to protracted litigation will not be relevant. It was held that the
crucial date is the date of petition; therefore, the normal rule is that
the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined on the
date of petition and that subsequent events can be taken into consid-
eration for moulding the reliefs, provided such events had a material
impact on those rights and obligations. It was further observed that it
is stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more
would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long
interregnum. Therefore, the courts have to take a very pragmatic
approach of the matter. It is common experience in our country that
especially landlord-tenant litigation's prolong for a long time. It is
true that neither can the person who has started the litigation sit idle
nor can the development of the event be stopped by him. Therefore,
the crucial event should be taken as on the date when the suit for
eviction was filed, unless the subsequent events materially change
the ground of relief.”
[17.1] The eviction petition in the present case was instituted in
the year 2013 and remained pending for several years. The circumstances of
a businessman, including the nature and status of his business, are liable to
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -13-
change during such a prolonged period and the bona fides of the requirement
have to be assessed from the overall circumstances and the conduct of the
landlord, rather than by adopting a hyper-technical approach to an
intervening change. The developments relied upon by the petitioner, namely,
the closure of the business at Mohali and the advancing age of the landlord,
are not of such nature and dimension as to make the requirement lose its
significance altogether. The plea that the landlord, being about 70 years of
age with his children settled abroad, could not need to expand his business
was rightly rejected by the learned Appellate Authority, holding that his age
is no ground to disbelieve his need and that it is not his fault that, even in the
year 2023, he stands on the same footing as he did in the year 2013.
[18]
Nor does the fact that the landlord got other portions of Indus-
trial Plot No. 323 vacated during the pendency of the proceedings and did
not occupy them show that his requirement is not bona fide , or that the
petition was filed merely to secure the eviction of the petitioner. The
landlord had pleaded in the eviction petition itself that he compromised with
the other tenants for vacation of a part of the plot. The bona fide requirement
has to be examined with reference to the circumstances existing when it was
pleaded and also in the light of subsequent events brought on record, but not
every subsequent event extinguishes it. The learned Rent Controller found
that the other tenants had vacated and that the petitioner, as admitted by him,
was the only tenant left in the building and held that this strengthened the
plea of the landlord. The vacation of those portions was itself a step towards
the requirement pleaded, namely, to establish the landlord’s business in his
own plot. In the considered opinion of this Court, this conduct, rather than
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -14-
demonstrating that the requirement was false or mala fide , lends support to
his stand that the premises were required for his own use. No material has
been brought on record by the petitioner to establish that the respondent-
landlord deliberately kept those portions vacant with a view to prosecute the
present eviction proceedings.
[19]
It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his require-
ment and the tenant cannot dictate to him how he should conduct his
business or which of his premises he should utilise. The Hon’ble Apex Court
in Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan 2025(1) RCR(Rent) 375 made the
following observations:-
“10. The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit
premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well
settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to
get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide
which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular
need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the
landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for
eviction.”
[19.1] The Court is to examine whether the requirement is
genuine and bona fide and not to substitute its own assessment of
commercial convenience for that of the landlord. Once the landlord makes
out a prima facie case of his requirement, a presumption arises that it is bona
fide . The learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner could not bring
anything convincing on record to discredit the version of the landlord.
Before this Court too, the petitioner was not able to show any circumstance
which would render the pleaded requirement inherently improbable or a
mere ploy to secure his eviction. The concurrent finding on bona fide
necessity, therefore, calls for no interference.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -15-
A LTERNATIVE A CCOMMODATION A ND P LEA OF C ONCEALMENT
[20] In the present case, the property bearing Industrial Shed No.
312, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula admittedly belonged to the wife of
the respondent-landlord and not to him. As per his deposition, she got it
vacated and sold it about two to two and a half years before his cross-
examination recorded on 18.02.2017. The learned Rent Controller repelled
the contention founded upon this property, holding that it was owned
by the wife of the landlord and not by the landlord himself, and that it is for
the landlord to see which of his properties would best suit his purpose. The
landlord specifically pleaded, and deposed in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, that
he did not own or possess any other industrial plot in the urban area of
Panchkula or near it. Even if the respondent held a power of attorney in
respect of the said property or received rent on behalf of its owner, that
would not, ipso facto , render its non-disclosure fatal to the eviction petition.
This is all the more so when the petitioner has failed to show that the said
property was available to the landlord in a manner that would defeat or
discredit his pleaded requirement.
[21] Furthermore, it is settled that the plea of concealment must
pertain to a material fact having a direct bearing upon the adjudication of the
bona fide requirement. Every omission or non-mention of a fact cannot be
elevated to the status of concealment disentitling the landlord from seeking
eviction. In the present case, no such material concealment has been
demonstrated. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding concealment of the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -16-
property bearing Industrial Shed No. 312, Industrial Area, Phase-I,
Panchkula, is without any merit and is hence, rejected.
R EFUND OF E XCESS R ENT
[22] The contention that once the ground of non-payment of rent was
given up, the entire amount tendered pursuant to the assessment of
provisional rent was required to be refunded is misconceived. By not
pressing that ground, the landlord gave up only his claim for eviction on
account of default; the rent for the period of the petitioner’s occupation
remained payable. The question of refund could, therefore, arise only to the
extent the petitioner proved that he paid the same rent twice. The learned
Rent Controller examined this question in terms of the order dated
21.11.2014 passed by this Court in CR No.1952 of 2014, which had left it to
be determined on evidence.
[23] On the basis of the admissions of the landlord, the learned Rent
Controller found that he had received the rent for the periods w.e.f.
November 2012 to 28.02.2014 (through account payee cheques) and w.e.f.
15.01.2012 to 15.03.2012 (through receipts Annexure R-6). These periods
were also included in the assessment order dated 03.03.2014 and the
landlord was held liable to refund the said amount along with interest. For
the period w.e.f. 01.08.2009 to October 2012, it was found that the
petitioner, on whom the onus lay, failed to prove the payment of rent. The
pleas of the landlord regarding the annual increase of 5% in rent and the
payment of house tax were rejected, and he was left at liberty to withdraw
the rent lying deposited in Court as per his entitlement. The learned
Appellate Authority upheld these findings, noticing that the landlord led no
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No. 7313 of 2023 (O&M) -17-
evidence to prove the facts otherwise, and dismissed the appeal as well as
the cross-objections. These findings rest on the admissions of the parties and
the evidence on record. The petitioner, being entitled only to such amount as
was found to have been paid in excess, has not shown any infirmity therein.
CONCLUSION
[24] In view of the above, none of the concurrent findings recorded
by the learned Authorities below suffers from perversity or illegality
warranting interference. The petitioner has, in substance, sought a
re-appraisal of the evidence and the substitution of his own view for that of
the learned Authorities below, which is impermissible.
[25] Accordingly, the present revision petition, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed . The orders dated 28.02.2018 passed by the
learned Rent Controller, Panchkula, and dated 31.08.2023 passed by the
learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula, are affirmed.
[26] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
November 05, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra’ JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document