01Facts
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the first and second floors of SCO No. 813-814, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, alleging a bona fide requirement for his son to start an independent retail business.
p. 2 · ¶ 3–4The petition disclosed that the landlord and Kewal Dhingra were co-owners, and that Dhingra occupied a separate ground-floor bay in the building.
p. 2 · ¶ 3–4The Rent Controller allowed the petition on 10 October 2017, and the Appellate Authority dismissed the tenant’s appeal on 21 August 2023.
p. 3 · ¶ 8In the revision, the tenant challenged the eviction orders, including on non-joinder of the co-owner and absence of proof of that co-owner’s consent.
p. 3 · ¶ 10–13The co-owners later entered into a compromise to pursue possession jointly and share the deposited rent and mesne profits.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 10–13The tenant separately challenged the executing court’s order of 1 October 2025 concerning release of deposited amounts and warrants of possession.
p. 4 · ¶ 1302Issues
i.1. Whether the eviction petition was defective because the other co-owner was not joined, and whether the tenant established that he opposed eviction.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 21–24ii.2. Whether the landlord had to plead or prove the other co-owner’s bona fide need.
p. 8 · ¶ 25–26iii.3. Whether the absence of regulatory permission to conduct the proposed business precluded an eviction order on bona fide-need grounds.
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 27–28iv.4. Whether the subsequent compromise between the co-owners could be considered in the revision, and whether the co-owner’s execution objections affected the eviction decree.
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 29–32v.5. Whether the concurrent eviction findings or the executing court’s order warranted interference in revision.
pp. 6, 9–11 · ¶ 19–20, 36–3803Law Applied
Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Chandigarh, permits the High Court to examine the legality or propriety of the order, but does not confer appellate jurisdiction; factual findings may be disturbed where they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, based on misreading, or contrary to law (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh).
p. 6 · ¶ 19–20Under Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan and Mahendra Prasad Jain v. Manoharlal Jain, one co-owner may maintain an eviction petition without joining the others; under India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla, the other co-owners’ consent is presumed unless disagreement is shown.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 21, 33A landlord may seek eviction on the bona fide requirement of a dependent son, and need not establish every co-owner’s separate requirement (Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal).
p. 8 · ¶ 25Regulatory permission is not ordinarily a precondition to an eviction order for bona fide need; a landlord need not commence the proposed business before seeking possession (Balwant Singh Chaudhary v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.; Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.).
p. 9 · ¶ 28Subsequent events may be considered where relevant to the relief (Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders), but must be assessed against the established need and the effect of the event on it (Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava).
p. 9 · ¶ 30An executing court cannot go behind the decree or reopen its merits.
p. 9 · ¶ 31Section 13(4) provides a statutory safeguard if the premises are not used for the purpose for which eviction was ordered.
p. 8 · ¶ 26Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115
04Reasoning
The tenant produced no evidence that the co-owner opposed eviction when the petition was filed or decided; the burden on non-joinder had been placed on the tenant, and the co-owner’s later conduct—including the compromise and joint request for possession—confirmed support for eviction.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 22–24The landlord was entitled to rely on his dependent son’s need, which both lower courts found genuine on the evidence, and the tenant’s own witness did not establish other available accommodation.
p. 8 · ¶ 25–26The permission argument had not been pleaded or raised before the Appellate Authority and, in any event, permission was not a prerequisite to eviction.
p. 8 · ¶ 27–28The compromise was not used to establish bona fide need, but was relevant to the tenant’s claim that the co-owner withheld consent.
p. 9 · ¶ 29–30The execution objections concerned the co-owners’ status and their shares in the deposited amounts, not the validity of eviction; the tenant could not pursue objections the co-owner had withdrawn.
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 31–32The Court found no basis under Section 15(5) to disturb the concurrent findings.
p. 10 · ¶ 3605Holding
The High Court dismissed CR-7508-2023 and upheld the eviction orders.
pp. 10–11 · ¶ 36–37The tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the first and second floors within three months, subject to filing an undertaking within two weeks and clearing mesne-profit arrears within four weeks.
p. 11 · ¶ 38(a)–(c)Mesne profits of ₹1,00,000 per month, inclusive of rent, were to continue until possession was delivered; outstanding arrears were recoverable in execution.
p. 11 · ¶ 38(a)–(c)CR-7378-2025 was disposed of in those terms, without affecting the co-owners’ inter se rights.
p. 11 · ¶ 38(d)–(e)Original Court PDF
Haryana Backward Classes And Economically Weaker Section Kalyan NigamvsYashpal Malhotra And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
