Jasvinde Singh Saini Vs Gurdeep Singh (Now Deceased) through His Legal Representative

Th e petitioner has approached th i s Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil J udge (Junior Division), Patia l a, dismissing his application for abatement of re n t proceedings. 2. Th e relevant facts necessary for a d judication are that the respond e nt– landlord had f i led a rent petition before th e Rent Controller, Patiala see k ing eviction of the p etitioner from the premises in dispute on the ground of bona f ide personal requir e ment. The petition specificall y disclosed that the premises w ere required for the business of the landlord’s dau g hter-in-law, namely Nisha Shar m a, who possessed relevant professional qualific a tions in Garment Production a nd Entrepreneur M anagement and for whom th e landlord intended to establis h a boutique and r e ady-made garments showroo m . During the pendency of the s aid proceedings, G u rdeep Singh, the landlord, exp i red on 16.04.2025. An applica t ion was thereafter m oved for impleading his lega l representatives on the basis o f a TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CR-8134-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶15

Will said to ha v e been executed by the deceas e d. The petitioner thereafter mo v ed an application contending that the proceedin g s stood abated on account of the death of the l a ndlord. This application was dismissed by the Rent Contr o ller through the impugned order.

¶16

Co n sidering the matter to be shor t and capable of being decide d on the basis of m a terial on record, no notice was issued to the respondents in the present revisio n petition. 4. Th e core submission of the petiti o ner is that the ground of pers o nal requirement as projected by the original landl o rd cannot survive after his de a th, and further, th a t the non-impleadment of the d aughter-in-law, for whose use the premises were sought, is fatal to the continu a tion of the proceedings. It is a lso argued that the Will set up by the legal repre s entatives discloses only the so n as successor, and t herefore, according to the petiti o ner, the alleged necessity does not enure to anyon e after the death of the landlord . Heavy reliance is placed upon the judgment of t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) and another v. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by LRs and another, 2004(2) RCR (Rent) 498 . 5. O n examination of the rent petiti o n itself and the impugned orde r , it becomes evide n t that the requirement pleaded was not the personal need of the landlord for his own occupation but a specific need projected for his daughter - inlaw to run her own professional venture. The foundation of the cause of ac t ion was, therefore, n ot dependent upon the subsist e nce of the landlord’s own phys i cal need but upon t h e projected necessity of a fami l y member. The mere demise o f the landlord does not eclipse or destroy the p ersonal requirement so plea d ed, especially whe n such requirement pertains to a living family member whose need remains unaffe c ted by the landlord’s death. This finding of the Rent Controll e r is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-8134-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶18

consistent with settled principles governing th e survivability of cause of actio n in eviction claims based on bona fide requirem e nt of dependants or other fa m ily members.

¶19

Th e contention regarding non-i m pleadment of the daughter-in- l aw also lacks sub s tance. The impleading of leg a l representatives serves only the procedural purpose of enabling the continuatio n of the proceedings. The person for whose benefit t h e eviction is sought need not b e added as a party to the peti t ion unless the stat u te specifically requires so. T he personal necessity, being o ne projected by th e landlord for a dependant family member, is not rendered inv a lid merely becaus e such dependant is not impl e aded. The proceedings, theref o re, cannot abate on this ground.

¶20

Th e reliance placed upon the judg m ent in Kedar Nath Agrawal’s case (supra) is mis c onceived and distinguishable o n facts. In that case, the Supr e me Court was co n cerned with a situation wher e the requirement pleaded by the landlord cease d to exist altogether due to s ubsequent events, and the C o urt emphasised the duty to consider such subseq u ent events when they strike at the very root of the necessity pleaded. The factual b ackdrop of the said case involv e d a personal requir e ment that had become wholly r e dundant as a result of the deat h of the parties for w hom requirement was claimed. In the present matter, the caus e of action was bas e d on the need of a person w ho continues to exist, and w h ose necessity, as pr o jected in the rent petition, rem a ins entirely unaffected by the d e ath of the landlor d . The principle laid down in the above judgment is there f ore inapplicable. R a ther, the legal position that s u bsequent events are relevant o nly when they defe a t or nullify the very basis of th e claim supports the conclusion t hat the present pro c eedings do not abate, as the nec e ssity survives intact. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CR-8134-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶22

Ev e n the Will set up by the lega l representatives does not hold the consequence s o ught to be attributed by the p e titioner. The fact that the son has succeeded to t h e estate of the deceased landlo r d does not efface the require m ent already pleade d in favour of the daughter-in-l a w. The landlord’s demise me r ely shifts the perso n entitled to prosecute the petition but does not wipe out the c a use of action. A co n trary interpretation would unj u stly defeat bona fide requirem e nts projected in fa v our of dependants merely due t o the landlord’s death, which is not the intent of the Rent Act.

¶23

Vi e wed from any angle, the findi n gs recorded by the Rent Contr o ller are well-reason e d and legally sound. The perso n al requirement survives, the c a use of action contin u es, and no ground is made out t o declare that the proceedings have abated. No jur i sdictional error, perversity, or failure to exercise jurisdictio n is established so a s to justify interference under A r ticle 227.

¶24

Fo r the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no merit in the present revisio n petition. The impugned order dated 27.10.2025 does not call for any interferenc e .

¶25

Th e revision petition is accordingl y dismissed. 12. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

December 03, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jasvinde Singh Saini v. Gurdeep Singh (Now Deceased) through His Legal Representative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasvinde Singh Saini v. Gurdeep Singh (Now Deceased) through His Legal Representative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwinder Singh and Another Vs Narinder Kapoor and Others

Sarbjinder Singh Bhullar Alias Bittu Bhullar Vs M/S Primelink Real Estates Private Limited and Others

Baba Jeet Singh @ Sant Baba Jeet Singh Vs Sant Jaspal Singh

Suresh Vs Dei Ram etc.

Sajjan Singh Dhillon Vs Thandi Ram and Ors.

Mohinder Singhg and Ors. Vs Nirmal Singh and Ors.