Dismissed¶¶29

Sushma Sapra v. Jagtar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2025CR/7312/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR-7312-2012 (O&M), decided 19.05.2025 by Anil Kshetarpal J. Section 13-B East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949; NRI landlord eviction; bona fide requirement of Shop No.14-A; landlord already holds Shop No.14-B in same monolith building; sale of unsuitable portion by landlord (formerly held by Smt. Sushma Gautam, available 2006) held immaterial; no new case made out by Courts below; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The respondent's requirement is specific to shop No.14-A, as he is already in possession of shop No.14-B, both being part of the same monolith building. ¶¶23

Sushma Sapra Vs Jagtar Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

104

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-7312-2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2025

SUSHMA SAPRA

..Petitioner

Versus

JAGTAR SINGH

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Sachin Kalia, Advocate for respondent.

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

¶13

The eviction of the petitioner (tenant) has been ordered by the Rent Controller, which in turn has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent being Non Resident Indian (NRI) sought immediate possession of Shop No.14-A by filing a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, in the year 2002.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:-

¶15

i. Previously, some portion of the property was in possession of Smt. Sushma Gautam, which became available to the landlord in the year 2006 who has sold the same.

¶16

ii. The Courts have made out a new case for the landlord.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that the requirement of the respondent is with respect to shop No.14-A as he wants to amalgamate shop No.14-B and 14-A in order to construct his office and run his

¶18

MOHD AYUB 2025.05.22 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶19

CR-7312-2012 (O&M) -2-

¶20

business of property broker. He submits that the property on the front is suitable for respondent’s business.

¶21

This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for

¶22

the parties.

¶23

It is evident that the requirement of the respondent is specific to shop No.14-A as he is already in possession of shop No.14-B, which are a part of the same monolith building.

¶24