Arjun Sharma vs Krishna Devi

IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M)
Arjun Sharma . . . Pe oner
vs.
Krishna Devi . . . . Respondent

Reserved on: October 28, 2026
Pronounced on: October 31, 2026
Pronounced fully/opera*ve part : Fully

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued By:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Rajinder Goyal and Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Advocates
for the respondent.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The pe oner-tenant has invoked the revisional jurisdicon of
this Court under Secon 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and
Evicon) Act, 1973 (hereina0er referred to as ‘the Act’), assailing the order
dated 28.02.2013 passed by learned Rent Controller, Hisar, whereby his evic-
on from the demised premises was ordered on the ground of bona fide per-
sonal necessity, as well as the order dated 04.11.2016 passed by learned Ap-
pellate Authority, Hisar, affirming the said order. The peoner has also chal-
lenged the separate order dated 04.11.2016, whereby his applicaon seeking
amendment of the wri:en statement was dismissed by learned Appellate Au-
thority, Hisar.
Factual background
2. The respondent-landlady ins tuted an evicon peon under
Secon 13 of the Act seeking evicon of the peoner from the first-floor
shop forming part of M.C. Property No.190, situated in Jain Gali, inside
Nagori Gate, Hisar. The demised premises were originally owned by Janender
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

Kumar Jain, from whom the respondent purchased the property vide
registered sale deed No.1458 dated 26.05.2009. The rela onship of landlord
and tenant between the pares is admi:ed.
3. Evicon was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent and
bona fide personal necessity. The respondent - landlord pleaded that the
demised premises were required for her son Naveen Kumar, aged
approximately 30 years, who was matriculate and unemployed and intended
to establish an independent business of selling water purifiers and allied
instruments. It was further pleaded that the respondent and her son did not
possess any other building in the urban area of Hisar for sasfying the stated
requirement and had not vacated any such premises a0er the
commencement of the Act.
4. The peoner - tenant contested the evicon peon, denying
the alleged personal necessity. He pleaded that following the purchase of the
property by the respondent, the rent had been enhanced upon an
understanding that he would not be evicted and that further enhancement
would take place a0er five years. It was further alleged that the previous
owner had instuted evicon proceedings against him on the ground of
personal necessity and, having failed to secure evicon, had subsequently
sold the property to the respondent. According to the peoner, the
subsequent purchase and instuon of evicon proceedings were intended
merely to secure his evicon. He also alleged concealment of other
accommodaon available to the respondent and her family.
5. Necessary issues were framed. In support of her case, the
respondent appeared as PW1 and examined her son Naveen Kumar as PW2.
The peoner- tenant appeared as RW1 and also examined Mahipal as RW2.
Documentary evidence, including the sale deed, documents pertaining to the
previous evicon proceedings and photographs, was also produced.
Findings of Courts below:
6. Learned Rent Controller, upon apprecia on of the evidence,
held that the bona fide requirement of the respondent for establishing her
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 2 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

son in an independent business stood proved. The objec on concerning
earlier ligaon was rejected, primarily on the ground that the respondent
was not a party to those proceedings. As regards the availability of other
accommodaon, learned Rent Controller noced that the ground-floor
poron was occupied by another son of the respondent, namely Parveen
Kumar, and that the small poron being used by Naveen Kumar for watch-
repair work did not negate the requirement of the demised premises for his
proposed independent business. Consequently, vide order dated 28.02.2013,
evicon was ordered. The ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed,
the provisional rent having been tendered.
7. Aggrieved, the peoner preferred an appeal. During its
pendency, he moved an applicaon dated 12.01.2016 under Order VI Rule 17
read with Secon 151 CPC, seeking amendment of the wri:en statement on
the basis of subsequent developments. It was pleaded that the husband of
the respondent had expired and that, therea0er, Naveen Kumar had shi0ed
his business of watches, mobiles and allied arcles to the ground-floor
poron of the building. The peoner sought to rely upon photographs and
cash memos allegedly evidencing the said business acvity.
8. Learned Appellate Authority, Hisar dismissed the amendment
applicaon vide separate order dated 04.11.2016, mainly on the ground that
the applicaon had been moved at a highly belated stage, a0er compleon of
the trial, and did not sasfy the requirements of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. By
another order of the same date, the appeal was dismissed and the findings of
learned Rent Controller regarding bona fide necessity were affirmed.
Submissions of the par es:
9. Learned counsel for the pe oner has assailed the concurrent findings
primarily on the ground that the respondent failed to establish the statutory
ingredients of bona fide personal necessity. It is contended that the existence
of other commercial accommodaon was deliberately concealed and that
Naveen Kumar was already carrying on business from another poron of the
building.
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 3 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

10. Learned counsel has further submi :ed that the applicaon for
amendment was founded upon subsequent events, which could not have
been pleaded earlier. The death of the respondent's husband and the alleged
shi0ing of Naveen Kumar's business to the ground floor, according to learned
counsel, materially affected the subsistence of the projected requirement. It
is urged that learned Appellate Authority dismissed the applicaon merely on
the ground of delay, without examining whether the subsequent
developments had rendered the original requirement non-existent. Reliance
has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prashad, 1981 (3) SCC 103; Kedar
Nath Agrawal (Dead) v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs and another, (2004) 8
SCC 76; and Prabha Arora and another v. Brij Mohini Anand and others,
(2007) 10 SCC 53 .
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported
the concurrent orders and submi :ed that the respondent's requirement was
duly established through the tesmonies of PW1 and PW2. It is contended
that the peoner cannot dictate the manner in which the respondent
should ulise her property or require her son to connue operang from a
small poron, when separate and more suitable commercial premises are
genuinely required. It is further submi:ed that the proposed amendment did
not disclose any event exnguishing the bona fide necessity and was rightly
declined. Reliance has been placed upon Sa sh Kumar Soni through his LRs
v. Dimpy Malhotra and another, 2024 (2) RCR (Rent) 653, and Suman Rani v.
Dharmender Rohilla, 2024 (2) RCR (Rent) 368.
Court's Analysis and Findings
12. Having heard learned counsel for the par es and examined the
impugned orders as well as the grounds of revision, this Court finds that the
controversy essenally involves two quesons: firstly, whether the
concurrent findings regarding bona fide personal necessity suffer from any
illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranng interference in
revisional jurisdicon; and secondly, whether rejecon of the applicaon for
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 4 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

amendment of the wri :en statement has occasioned any failure of jusce,
parcularly in view of the law governing subsequent events.
13. At the outset, the scope of revisional jurisdicon under Secon
15(6) of the Act deserves to be noced. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpora on
Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
considering the scope of revisional powers under various rent control
enactments, including the Haryana Act, held that such jurisdic on is wider
than the jurisdicon under Secon 115 CPC but does not partake of the
character of a regular appellate jurisdicon. The High Court is empowered to
examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the
authories below, but cannot undertake a fresh reappraisal of the enre
evidence merely to substute its own view for another reasonably possible
view.
14. Thus, where the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and
affirmed by the Appellate Authority are founded upon relevant evidence and
represent a reasonably possible conclusion, interference is not warranted
merely because the tenant seeks a different appreciaon of the material on
record. However, a finding based upon misreading of material evidence,
disregard of statutory requirements or an erroneous applicaon of law would
remain amenable to revisional correcon.
15. Proceeding further, the law relang to bona fide personal
necessity is equally well se:led. The requirement must be genuine, honest
and conceived in good faith, as disnguished from a mere wish or desire. At
the same me, it need not amount to an absolute or compelling necessity. In
Raghunath G. Panhale v. M/s Chaganlal Sundarji and Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a landlord seeking premises for
establishing a business is not required to prove that he has reached the point
of starva on or that he has already arranged the necessary finances for
commencing the proposed business.
16. In M/s Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai
Prabhulal and Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252 , it was recognised that the landlord is
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 5 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

ordinarily the best judge of his business requirement and the tenant cannot
insist that the landlord must adjust his affairs in a par cular manner. The
principle, however, does not dispense with the statutory requirement of
establishing that the need is genuine.
17. In Sa sh Kumar Soni through his LRs v. Dimpy Malhotra and
another (supra) , this Court, a 0er considering the se:led principles governing
bona fide requirement, reiterated that the requirement must be reasonable
and genuine, but need not amount to a dire necessity. It was further held
that the landlord's requirement is to be assessed objecvely, keeping in view
the surrounding circumstances, and that the tenant cannot dictate the
manner in which the landlord should adjust his affairs. The Court also
reiterated the limited scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact
in revisional jurisdicon.
18. Similarly, in Suman Rani v. Dharmender Rohilla (supra), this
Court examined the statutory requirements concerning personal necessity,
including the availability of other accommoda on and the effect of
subsequent developments. The decision recognises the necessity of
examining the actual suitability and availability of accommodaon rather
than proceeding merely on the basis that the landlord or a family member
possesses some other property.
19. Examined in the light of these principles, the findings recorded
by the courts below cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported by
evidence. The respondent specifically pleaded that her son intended to
establish an independent business of selling water purifiers and allied
instruments. She entered the witness box as PW1 and supported the pleaded
requirement. More importantly, Naveen Kumar himself appeared as PW2
and affirmed his intenon to commence the proposed business. The
Appellate Authority noced that their tesmony regarding the projected
requirement remained substanally unshaken.
20. The primary objecon of the peoner relates to the existence
of other commercial accommodaon. In this regard, learned Rent Controller
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 6 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

examined the admissions made during cross-examina on and noced that
the property purchased by the respondent comprised the demised first-floor
poron, ground-floor accommodaon and basement. The ground-floor
poron was occupied by another son, Parveen Kumar, whereas Naveen
Kumar was carrying on watch-repair work from a small poron.
21. The existence of such accommodaon cannot be ignored while
examining the statutory requirement. Nevertheless, mere ownership or
availability of some poron of a building does not necessarily establish that
the accommodaon is reasonably suitable for the parcular need projected
by the landlord. Its nature, extent, occupaon, suitability and the purpose for
which the demised premises are required are material consideraons.
22. In the present case, learned Rent Controller specifically
considered the occupaon of the ground-floor poron by Parveen Kumar and
the limited business acvity of Naveen Kumar. It was held that the poron
occupied by the former was not available for the proposed independent
business of the la:er. As regards the small poron being used by Naveen
Kumar, the Rent Controller found that such acvity did not disentle him
from seeking the demised premises for establishing a separate business.
23. The contenon regarding concealment also requires
consideraon. There is no dispute that the respondent pleaded non-
availability of other accommodaon, whereas evidence regarding occupaon
of porons of the same building emerged during trial. Such a circumstance is
undoubtedly relevant and requires judicial scruny. However, every omission
concerning the existence of another poron does not automacally defeat an
evicon peon. The material queson is whether the omission concerns
accommodaon reasonably suitable and available for sasfying the parcular
requirement.
24. In the present case, the courts below considered the relevant
admissions and the occupaon of the other porons. The finding that those
porons did not negate the bona fide requirement of Naveen Kumar is
founded upon an appreciaon of the evidence. The alleged concealment,
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 7 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

therefore, cannot independently furnish a ground for se Lng aside the
evicon order, when the nature and availability of the accommodaon have
been examined and the requirement has nevertheless been found genuine.
Effect of subsequent events and challenge to rejec on of amendment
25. As far as the order dated 04.11.2016 dismissing the pe oner's
applicaon under Order VI Rule17 read with Secon 151 CPC for amendment
of the wri:en statement, is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the peoner has
relied upon three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that
subsequent events affecng the subsistence of the landlord's requirement
must be taken into consideraon even at the appellate stage.
26. In Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prashad (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where evic on is sought on the ground of
bona fide personal requirement, the requirement must not only exist on the
date of instuon of the proceedings but must connue to subsist unl the
final adjudicaon. In that case, the landlord had obtained possession of a
substanal poron of the premises through another evicon proceeding
during the pendency of ligaon. The subsequent acquision of
accommodaon was directly relevant to the statutory requirement that the
landlord should not possess other reasonably suitable non-residenal
accommodaon. The Supreme Court held that such a subsequent event
could not be ignored and that the tenant ought to have been permi:ed to
raise the plea by amendment.
27. In Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs
(supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that subsequent events
materially affec ng the landlord's requirement are relevant and may be
considered even during proceedings before the higher Court. The case
concerned the effect of the death of the landlords and the queson whether
the requirement survived in favour of their legal representaves. The Court
emphasised that the adjudicang authority must take into consideraon
material changes in circumstances rather than deciding the controversy upon
a factual foundaon which no longer exists.
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 8 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

28. In Prabha Arora and another v. Brij Mohini Anand and others
(supra) , the landlady had sought evic on for establishing a coaching centre
to augment her personal income. During the pendency of proceedings, the
property was transferred to a trust. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
very foundaon of the projected personal requirement had disappeared
because the premises no longer belonged to the landlady in her individual
capacity and the income of the trust could not be treated as her personal
income. Consequently, the evicon order was set aside.
29. The principle emerging from the aforesaid judgments is that a
landlord's bona fide requirement must connue to subsist unl final
adjudicaon and that subsequent events having a direct and material bearing
upon such requirement cannot be excluded from consideraon merely
because they occurred a0er commencement or conclusion of the trial.
However, the subsequent event must be of such significance as to affect the
foundaon of the requirement. Every intervening circumstance or change in
the landlord's affairs does not necessarily exnguish a requirement, which
was otherwise genuine when the proceedings were instuted.
30. The disncon is material. In Hasmat Rai (supra ), the landlord
had acquired possession of substan al alternave accommodaon. In Kedar
Nath Agrawal (supra), the death of the landlords raised a ques on
concerning the very survival of the projected requirement. In Prabha Arora
(supra), the transfer of the property to a trust had fundamentally altered the
legal and factual basis upon which personal requirement had been asserted.
Thus, in each case, the subsequent development directly affected the
en tlement to evicon.
31. In the present case, the peoner sought amendment on the
plea that, following the death of the respondent's husband, Naveen Kumar
had shi0ed his business of watches and mobiles to the ground-floor poron
of the same building. The proposed amendment was thus not founded upon
the respondent acquiring an independent and admi:edly suitable
commercial property elsewhere. Rather, it related to a change in the place
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 9 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

from which Naveen Kumar was allegedly carrying on an exis ng business
acvity.
32. Significantly, the fact that Naveen Kumar was already engaged in
watch-repair work from a small poron was not a new circumstance
emerging for the first me during the appeal. This aspect had been
specifically raised and considered during the original evicon proceedings.
Learned Rent Controller, while dealing with the photographs and tesmony
of RW2 Mahipal, had noced the existence of such business acvity and had
nevertheless concluded that it did not negate the requirement of the
demised premises for establishing the proposed independent business.
33. The only addional circumstance sought to be introduced was
that, a0er the death of the respondent's husband, Naveen Kumar had
allegedly shi0ed his business to another poron on the ground floor. Even
assuming that such shi0ing had taken place, the same would not, without
anything further, establish that the need for the demised premises had
ceased to exist. The proposed amendment did not establish that the newly
occupied poron was of such nature, extent and suitability that it fully
sasfied the requirement for which evicon had been sought.
34. The disncon between carrying on some business acvity and
possessing reasonably suitable accommodaon for the proposed
independent business is material. A person awaing possession of premises
for establishing a business cannot reasonably be expected to remain
unemployed throughout the ligaon. The fact that he may have
commenced or shi0ed an interim business acvity does not, by itself,
exnguish the original requirement.
35. Learned Appellate Authority dismissed the amendment
applicaon primarily by invoking the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and
observing that the applicaon had been moved a0er commencement and
compleon of the trial. To the extent that the applicaon was founded upon
events allegedly occurring a0er the decision of the Rent Controller, the
queson of due diligence could not appropriately be determined merely by
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 10 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

reference to the commencement of the original trial. A party cannot be
expected to plead an event before it has occurred. Therefore, the reasoning
adopted by learned Appellate Authority on this limited aspect cannot be
accepted as an absolute proposi on of law.
36. Nevertheless, an erroneous or incomplete reason does not
necessarily require interference with an interlocutory order, where the
ulmate conclusion is otherwise legally sustainable. The Court is required to
examine whether the proposed amendment was necessary for determining
the real controversy and whether its rejecon has occasioned any material
prejudice or failure of jusce.
37. In the present case, the proposed amendment, even if taken at
its face value, does not disclose any circumstance which necessarily
exnguishes the bona fide requirement already established through
evidence. The alleged shi0ing of the watch and mobile business to another
poron of the building does not establish that the demised premises are no
longer required for the proposed independent business. Nor does the death
of the respondent's husband, by itself, have any direct bearing upon the
requirement projected for Naveen Kumar.
38. It is also relevant that the peoner had already been afforded
full opportunity to contest the respondent's claim concerning the availability
of other accommodaon. The existence of other porons in the same
building and the business acvity of Naveen Kumar were ma:ers specifically
examined by learned Rent Controller. The proposed amendment, therefore,
substanally sought to reopen an issue already adjudicated, on the basis of
an alleged change in the locaon of the same business acvity.
39. The decisions relied upon by the peoner are, therefore,
disnguishable on their facts. Those authories do not lay down that every
subsequent change in business acvity, irrespecve of its effect upon the
suitability and availability of accommodaon, must result in reopening of the
evicon proceedings. What is required is a material subsequent event
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 11 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

capable of altering the en tlement to evicon. No such event is disclosed in
the present case.
40. The principles reiterated by this Court in Sa sh Kumar Soni
(supra) and Suman Rani (supra) are relevant in this context. The bona fide
requirement is to be examined objec vely, but the landlord retains the right
to determine which accommodaon is reasonably suitable for the intended
purpose. The mere existence of some other business acvity or
accommodaon does not automacally defeat the requirement, parcularly
where the courts below have examined the circumstances and found the
projected need genuine.
41. In these circumstances, permiLng the amendment would not
materially assist in determining whether the requirement for the demised
premises had ceased to exist. Rather, it would necessitate reopening the
evidence and prolonging proceedings without disclosure of any subsequent
event of such significance as would alter the foundaon of the evicon order.
42. Consequently, although the reasoning of learned Appellate
Authority concerning the bar under Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires the
clarificaon noced above, its ulmate decision declining the amendment
does not warrant any interference.
Conclusion
43. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds that the
respondent-landlady had established the bona fide requirement of the
demised premises for her son Naveen Kumar through cogent evidence. The
courts below have considered the objec ons relang to the previous evicon
proceedings, alleged concealment of other accommodaon and the exisng
business acvity of Naveen Kumar. The findings recorded thereon are
supported by the evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or
material irregularity warranng any interference in revisional jurisdicon.
44. The order dated 04.11.2016 rejecng the amendment
applicaon, though not enrely sustainable on the reasoning concerning the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, does not call for interference in view of the
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 12 of 13

CR No.8326 of 2016 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 195020

nature of the proposed amendment and its lack of material bearing upon the
ul mate entlement to evicon. No prejudice affecng the merits of the
controversy is shown to have resulted from its rejecon.
45. Consequently, finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent
findings recorded by the courts below, the present revision peon is
dismissed. The evicon order dated 28.02.2013 passed by learned Rent
Controller, Hisar, as affirmed by learned Appellate Authority, Hisar, vide
order dated 04.11.2016, is hereby upheld. The challenge to the separate
order dated 04.11.2016 dismissing the applicaon for amendment of the
wri:en statement also stands rejected, subject to the clarificaon of law
recorded hereinabove.
46. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady has stated that the
applicaon moved for determinaon of mesne profits is not pressed.
Accordingly, the said applicaon stands dismissed as not pressed, without
any adjudicaon on merits.
47. Pending miscellaneous applicaons, if any, shall also stand dis-
posed of.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
October 31, 2026
Sarita
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes
Whether reportable? : Yes
Uploaded on: October 31, 2026
SARITA RANI
2026.10.31 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 13 of 13