Haryana Backward Classes And Economically Weaker Section Kalyan Nigam vs Yashpal Malhotra And Anr

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


i) CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
Haryana Backward Classes Economically
Weaker Section Kalyan Nigam ...Petitioner

Versus
Yashpal Malhotra ...Respondent
ii) CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
Haryana Backward Classes Economically
Weaker Section Kalyan Nigam ...Petitioner

Versus
Yashpal Malhotra and another ...Respondents

Reserved on: 30.10.2026
Pronounced on: 13.11.2026
Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Suchi Mahajan, Advocate,
Mr. Rajvir Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
In CR-7508-2023.

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Rohit Duggal, Advocate and
Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 in CR-7508-2023.

Ms. Promila Nain, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Isha Dhingra, Advocate and
Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Advocate
For respondent No.2 in CR-7378-2025.


DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The petitioner-tenant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949,
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 1 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh (for short, "the Act"). It
assails the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by Ld. Rent Controller, Chandigarh,
and the Order dated 21.08.2023 of the Ld. Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. By
these concurrent orders, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the entire
first and second floors of SCO No.813-814, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh (for short,
"the demised premises").
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as the "tenant" and
the "landlord". Respondent No.1, Yashpal Malhotra, is the landlord, who filed
the eviction petition. Kewal Dhingra is the other co-owner of the building.
Background Facts
3. The landlord filed Rent Application No.482 of 2015 on 13.07.2015
under Section 13 of the Act. He pleaded that he and the other co-owner, late
Sh. Amar Nath, had let out the demised premises to the tenant in 1980 at
₹2,000/- per month, since enhanced to ₹23,844/- per month. The premises
were stated to be required for the bona fide need of his son, Vishal Malhotra,
who had married on 27.02.2015 and wished to start an independent retail
business in uniforms, stationery, paper items, exercise books, book binding
and wiro binding.
4. The petition specifically disclosed that the son was then working
with M/s Shiva Industries, the proprietorship concern of the landlord's wife at
Industrial Plot No.5, Phase I, Chandigarh, in which the landlord held a 1/3rd
share. It also disclosed that bay shop No.814 on the ground floor was in
occupation of the other co-owner, Kewal Dhingra son of late Sh. Amar Nath,
and that a separate eviction petition was being filed against the ground-floor
tenant, Vipin Kumar. It was averred that neither the landlord nor his family
occupied or had vacated any other commercial property in the urban area of
Chandigarh after the commencement of the Act.
5. The tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. It
pleaded that the petition, filed by one co-owner alone, was not maintainable
and was bad for non-joinder; that the ground floor had fallen vacant and was
YOGESH MEHTA not occupied by the landlord; that the son was already working in his mother's
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 2 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
concern; and that the landlord had concealed other properties, including a
commercial property in Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.
6. Necessary issues were framed, including Issue No.5 on misjoinder
and non-joinder of necessary parties with onus on the tenant. The landlord
examined himself as PW-1 and his son as PW-2. The tenant examined Anil
Kumar, Data Entry Operator, Estate Office, Chandigarh, as RW-1, and its
District Manager as RW-2.
7. RW-1, the tenant's own witness, deposed that the SCO was
allotted in 1975 to Amar Nath and Yash Pal; that Amar Nath's 50% share
devolved by will dated 26.09.1983 and family settlement dated 14.05.2013;
and that ownership now stands in the names of Kewal Dhingra and Yash Pal.
He further deposed that the landlord holds no other property in his name
except his joint ownership of the SCO in question, and that the Industrial Plot
does not bear the ownership of the landlord or his wife.
8. By order dated 10.10.2017, the Rent Controller decided Issues
No.1 and 3 to 5 together and upheld the projected need of the landlord to be
bona fide, rejecting the plea of non-joinder by relying on Kasthuri
Radhakrishnan and others v. M. Chinniyan and another, 2016 (3) SCC 296 and
found no concealment. The tenant was given three months to vacate. Rent
Appeal No.237 of 2017 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on
21.08.2023, which affirmed the findings on all issues and recorded that no
other point was argued.
9. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Authority, by
order dated 06.08.2019, assessed mesne profits at ₹1,00,000/- per month
from the date of the eviction order, i.e., 10.10.2017. CR-5947-2019 filed by the
tenant against that order was dismissed by this Court on 06.12.2022. That
order has attained finality.
10. The landlord filed Execution No.29 of 2021, wherein Kewal
Dhingra filed objections, and an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 3 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
the executing court allowed on 16.07.2024. The landlord challenged that order
in CR-4723-2024.
11. In the present revision, Kewal Dhingra filed CM-16759-CII-2024
for impleadment. Thereafter, the two co-owners executed a compromise deed
dated 23.07.2025, whereby they agreed to share the rent and mesne profits
deposited by the tenant equally, to obtain possession of the entire first and
second floors jointly, to contest the execution jointly so as to get possession as
early as possible, and to withdraw their respective revisions. Clause 10 records
that the landlord has no objection to Kewal Dhingra being impleaded as co-
landlord.
12. By order dated 08.08.2025, this Court allowed CM-14941-CII-2025
and took the compromise deed on record, without prejudice to the rights of
the parties to be adjudicated on merits. Counsel for Kewal Dhingra stated that
the two co-owners would settle their rights vis-a-vis mesne profits at their own
level, and CM-16759-CII-2024 was dismissed as withdrawn. On the same date,
this Court directed the tenant to deposit mesne profits at ₹1,00,000/- per
month, inclusive of the rent payable, in the executing court within four weeks,
and permitted the executing court to proceed with deposit and disbursement.
By a further order dated 28.08.2025, four more weeks were granted to clear
arrears up to 30.09.2025.
13. By order dated 01.10.2025, the executing court recorded that
both the landlord and Kewal Dhingra appeared, made separate statements,
sought release of the deposited amount and prayed for warrants of
possession. It recorded that the tenant had deposited only ₹65,78,043/-,
covering arrears up to 31.07.2025, against ₹95,66,666/- due up to 30.09.2025.
It directed release of the deposited amount to the two co-owners in equal
shares in terms of the compromise dated 23.07.2025. The tenant has
challenged that order in CR-7378-2025.
Contentions
14. Assailing the concurrent orders of eviction, Learned senior
YOGESH MEHTA counsel for the tenant has urged the following grounds:
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 4 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
(a) All the co-owners of the demised premises were not impleaded,
so the petition was not maintainable.
(b) The bona fide need of the other co-owner, Kewal Dhingra, was
neither pleaded nor proved.
(c) Permission from the competent authority to start business in the
demised premises has not been obtained so far.
(d) The Rent Controller did not discuss the non-impleadment of the
co-owner, and there is no discussion on Issue No.5.
(e) The compromise dated 23.07.2025 between the co-owners was
effected during the pendency of this revision and cannot be taken into
consideration.
(f) Execution is a continuation of the main proceedings, so the
objections of the co-owner in execution must be taken into consideration.
15. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on M/s India Umbrella
Manufacturing Co. and others v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by LRs, 2004
AIR SC 1321, and Mangal Builders and Enterprises Ltd. And another v.
Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd., 2020(1) RCR (Rent) 116 .
16. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the landlord has
supported the impugned orders. He also placed on record his short synopsis as
Annexure RX-1 . He submits that there are concurrent findings of fact based on
proper appreciation of evidence, and that there is no scope for interference in
revision.
17. He relies on Mahendra Prasad Jain v. Manoharlal Jain, (2006) 2
SCC 724; Raj Kumar Khaitan v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun, (1997) 11 SCC 411;
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, 2014 AIR SC 3708;
Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, 2001 AIR SC 803; Smt. Prabha Sehgal and
others v. Shri Subhash Sahoonja and others, 2018 (4) PLR 521 TMT; Kasthuri
Radhakrishnan and others v. M. Chinniyan and another, (2016) 3 SCC 296;
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 5 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
and Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Lal v. Nikhil Kumar and others, 2026(1) RCR
(Rent) 473.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record, including the orders and the compromise deed placed on the file.

Scope of revisional jurisdiction
19. Section 15(5) of the Act empowers this Court to examine the
record to satisfy itself as to the "legality or propriety" of an order. In Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (supra), the Constitution Bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered revisional provisions in rent statutes,
including the pari materia provision of the Haryana Rent Act. It held that such
jurisdiction, though wider than the jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, is not
an appellate jurisdiction. The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence merely
because a different view is possible. A finding of fact is open to interference
only if it is perverse, rests on no evidence, ignores material evidence, misreads
the evidence, or is contrary to law.
20. Bona fide requirement is essentially a question of fact. The
present case arises on concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and
the Appellate Authority on the evidence of both sides. The contentions are
therefore examined within the limits laid down in Dilbahar Singh (supra ).
Analysis by this Court
(i) Non-joinder of the co-owner, and the alleged non-consideration
of Issue No.5 -
21. The law on this point is settled. A co-owner is as much an owner
of every part of the joint property as the others, so long as it remains
unpartitioned. In Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that one co-owner can maintain an eviction petition and
that the other co-owners need not be joined. Mahendra Prasad Jain v.
Manoharlal Jain, (2006) 2 SCC 724, is also to the same effect. The tenant's
own authority, India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. (supra), explains the
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 6 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
rationale. A co-owner who sues for eviction does so in his own right and as
agent of the other co-owners, whose consent is presumed unless it is shown
that they were not agreeable and the suit was filed despite their
disagreement.
22. The tenant thus had to show that Kewal Dhingra disagreed with
the eviction when the petition was filed or decided. Issue No.5 placed that
onus on the tenant. No such evidence was led. Kewal Dhingra was not
examined, and he raised no objection before the Rent Controller or the
Appellate Authority. The landlord's petition itself named him as the other co-
owner in occupation of bay shop No.814. The tenant's own witness, RW-1,
proved that ownership stands in the joint names of the landlord and Kewal
Dhingra. There was nothing concealed and nothing to rebut the presumption
of consent.
23. The subsequent conduct of Kewal Dhingra confirms, rather than
dislodges, that presumption. In the compromise deed, he agreed to contest
the execution jointly with the landlord in order to get possession from the
tenant as early as possible. Before the executing court on 01.10.2025, he made
a statement praying for warrants of possession of the demised premises. He
withdrew his impleadment application before this Court on 08.08.2025. A plea
that a co-owner does not consent can be raised only where the co-owner
actually dissents. It cannot be set up by a tenant on behalf of a co-owner, who
supports eviction.
24. The submission that the Rent Controller did not discuss non-
impleadment or Issue No.5 is factually incorrect. The Rent Controller took up
Issues No.1 and 3 to 5 together. He dealt with the plea of non-joinder in paras
28 and 29 with reference to Kasthuri Radhakrishnan (supra). In para 33 he
expressly held that nothing on record showed the petition to be bad for non-
joinder or misjoinder, and decided Issues No.3 to 5 against the tenant. The
Appellate Authority affirmed the findings on all issues. It also recorded that no
other point was argued and the grounds pressed before it did not include non-
joinder. Thus, the contention raised by tenant fails.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 7 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
(ii) Bona fide need of the other co-owner not disclosed -
25. A co-owner landlord who seeks eviction for his own bona fide
requirement is not obliged to plead or prove the requirement of every other
co-owner. The petition is maintained in his own right, and it is his need that
falls for determination, as has been observed in Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and
Mahendra Prasad Jain, (supra). The requirement of the landlord's son, who is
dependent on him, is the landlord's own requirement. Reliance may be placed
on Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397, as rightly noticed by
Ld. Rent Controller.
26. Both the courts below found the son's need genuine on the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, which remained unshaken in cross-examination.
The plea of other available accommodation was disproved by the tenant's own
witness. These are findings of fact and no perversity or misreading has been
shown. How the co-owners arrange the use of the premises between
themselves is a matter inter se; it neither dilutes the need found proved nor
gives the tenant a right to remain in possession. Should the premises not be
put to the use, for which eviction was ordered, the statutory safeguard under
Section 13(4) of the Act is available to the tenant. So, the contention is
rejected.
(iii) Permission of the competent authority not yet obtained -
27. This plea was not raised in the written statement nor was it the
subject of any issue, and was not even argued before the Appellate Authority.
It cannot be raised for the first time in revision, as it would require a factual
inquiry. Even on merits, it has no force. The demised premises form part of a
shop-cum-office site at a commercial location. The landlord specifically
pleaded that he would seek the necessary conversion from the Estate Office
for the business.
28. Obtaining regulatory permission is a step that ordinarily follows
possession. It is not a precondition to an order of eviction on the ground of
bona fide need. A landlord need not set up the business before seeking
eviction as held in Balwant Singh Chaudhary and another v. Hindustan
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 8 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2004(1) RCR 487 , rightly noticed by the Rent
Controller. As landlord is not even required specify the precise nature of the
business, he can hardly be required to have regulatory sanction in hand for it.
A tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should arrange his affairs as held in
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119 . So, the
contention is rejected.
(iv) The compromise dated 23.07.2025 -
29. The compromise was taken on record on 08.08.2025 without
prejudice to the rights of the parties. The concurrent findings on bona fide
need, maintainability and concealment rest on the evidence led before the
courts below. They have been tested above on that evidence alone, and they
stand independently of the compromise.
30. In any event, a court is not barred from noticing a subsequent
event which is brought on record and bears on the relief as observed in
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770. The
compromise is not relied upon to found the landlord's need. It is relevant only
to the tenant's own plea that the other co-owner did not consent. Thus, it
answers that plea against the tenant. The tenant cannot ask the Court to look
at the co-owner's earlier objections in execution, which are themselves later
events, while shutting out his later compromise. Further, a subsequent event
must be such as to eclipse the landlord's need altogether before it can defeat a
decree. A landlord is not to be penalised for the time taken by litigation as
observed in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, 2001 (2) SCC 604 . The
compromise does nothing of the kind. So, the contention is rejected.
(v) Execution as a continuation of the proceedings, and the co-
owner's objections -
31. Though it may be true that execution is a continuation of the suit,
but that does not supports the tenant. An executing court cannot go behind
the decree or reopen the merits of the eviction order. The objections of Kewal
Dhingra in execution concerned his status and his share in the rent and mesne
profits. They did not dispute the eviction itself.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 9 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
32. Even otherwise, those objections no longer survive. The co-
owners have settled their inter se rights. Kewal Dhingra withdrew his
impleadment application before this Court. Before the executing court on
01.10.2025, he joined the landlord in seeking release of the deposited amount
and warrants of possession. The tenant has no independent right to espouse
objections, which the co-owner himself has given up. So, the contention is
rejected.
Authorities cited by the tenant -
33. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. (supra) does not help the
tenant; rather it supports the landlord. It reiterates that one co-owner may sue
for eviction as agent of the others, whose consent is presumed. The
presumption yields only where the other co-owners are shown to have been
unwilling and the proceedings were taken despite their disagreement. As held
above, there is no such evidence here, and the other co-owner has
affirmatively sought possession.
34. Mangal Builders and Enterprises Ltd. (supra) turned on its own
facts. Nothing in it permits a tenant to defeat concurrent findings of bona fide
need on the basis of a co-owner's objection that was never pressed at trial and
has since been withdrawn.
35. The view taken above is in line with the authorities relied on by
the landlord, in particular Dilbahar Singh, Kasthuri Radhakrishnan, Mahendra
Prasad Jain, Gaya Prasad and Raj Kumar Khaitan (supra); Prabha Sehgal
(supra) and Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Lal v. Nikhil Kumar (supra).
Conclusion
36. Consequent to above discussion, it is found that the concurrent
findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rest on a proper
appreciation of the evidence and the settled law. No illegality, perversity or
impropriety has been shown that would warrant interference under Section
15(5) of the Act. None of the contentions raised by the tenant has any merit.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 10 of Total 11 Pages

CR-7508-2023 (O&M)
CR-7378-2025 (O&M)
37. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The order dated
10.10.2017 of the Rent Controller and the judgment dated 21.08.2023 of the
Appellate Authority are upheld.
38. It is further directed as under:
(a) The tenant shall hand over vacant possession of the entire first
and second floors of SCO No.813-814, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, within three
months from today, failing which the executing court shall proceed with the
issue of warrants of possession in accordance with law.
(b) The time in clause (a) is subject to the tenant filing an undertaking
before the executing court within two weeks to vacate on or before the date
fixed, and to clearing all arrears of mesne profits with the executing court
within four weeks.
(c) The tenant shall continue to pay mesne profits at ₹1,00,000/- per
month, inclusive of the rent, as assessed on 06.08.2019 and directed by this
Court on 08.08.2025, until possession is delivered. Arrears outstanding,
including the shortfall noticed in the order dated 01.10.2025, shall be
recoverable in the execution proceedings.
(d) Nothing in this judgment shall affect the inter se rights of the co-
owners, which shall be governed by their own arrangement.
(e) CR-7378-2025 is disposed of in terms of this order.
39. All pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

13.11.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

Uploaded on: 13.11.2026
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.13 13:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 11 of Total 11 Pages