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

IN T

Jasvinder Singh Gurdeep Singh (

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

Constitution of learned Civil J abatement of ren

2.

landlord had fi eviction of the p personal require required for the who possessed Entrepreneur M boutique and re proceedings, Gu was thereafter m

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De

h Saini

VERSUS (now deceased) through his LR N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Sr. s. Tarranum Madan, Advocate an r. K.S.Riar, Advocate for the peti -.- ANNU J. e petitioner has approached thi India seeking to set aside the or Judge (Junior Division), Patial nt proceedings. e relevant facts necessary for ad iled a rent petition before the petitioner from the premises in ement. The petition specifically business of the landlord's daug relevant professional qualifica Management and for whom the eady-made garments showroom urdeep Singh, the landlord, expi moved for impleading his legal

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-8134-2025 (O&M) cided on :-03.12.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondent EEP PANNU Advocate with nd itioner. is Court under Article 227 of der dated 27.10.2025 passed by la, dismissing his application djudication are that the responde e Rent Controller, Patiala seek dispute on the ground of bona f y disclosed that the premises w ghter-in-law, namely Nisha Sharm ations in Garment Production a e landlord intended to establish m. During the pendency of the s ired on 16.04.2025. An applicat l representatives on the basis o

- ent– king fide were ma, and h a said

Will said to hav an application death of the la through the imp

3.

Con the basis of ma present revision

4.

requirement as and further, tha premises were argued that the successor, and t enure to anyone judgment of th another v. Dhan

5.

On becomes eviden landlord for his law to run her was, therefore, n need but upon th landlord does especially when remains unaffec ve been executed by the decease contending that the proceeding andlord. This application was ugned order. nsidering the matter to be short aterial on record, no notice wa n petition. e core submission of the petitio projected by the original landlo at the non-impleadment of the d sought, is fatal to the continua Will set up by the legal repres therefore, according to the petitio e after the death of the landlord. he Hon'ble Supreme Court in K nraji Devi (dead) by LRs and an n examination of the rent petitio nt that the requirement pleaded own occupation but a specific own professional venture. The not dependent upon the subsiste he projected necessity of a famil not eclipse or destroy the p n such requirement pertains to a cted by the landlord's death. Th

ed. The petitioner thereafter mov gs stood abated on account of dismissed by the Rent Contro t and capable of being decided s issued to the respondents in oner is that the ground of perso ord cannot survive after his dea daughter-in-law, for whose use ation of the proceedings. It is a sentatives discloses only the son oner, the alleged necessity does . Heavy reliance is placed upon Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) a nother, 2004(2) RCR (Rent) 498 on itself and the impugned order was not the personal need of need projected for his daughter-foundation of the cause of act ence of the landlord's own physi ly member. The mere demise of personal requirement so plead living family member whose n is finding of the Rent Controlle

- ved oller d on onal ath, also n as not and

¶8r, it -in-ical f the ded, eed

consistent with eviction claims members.

6.

also lacks subs procedural purp whose benefit th unless the statu projected by the merely because cannot abate on

7.

(supra) is misc Court was con landlord ceased emphasised the very root of the personal require the parties for w action was base necessity, as pro of the landlord inapplicable. Ra when they defea the present proc settled principles governing the based on bona fide requireme e contention regarding non-im stance. The impleading of lega ose of enabling the continuation he eviction is sought need not b ute specifically requires so. T e landlord for a dependant fami e such dependant is not imple this ground. e reliance placed upon the judgm conceived and distinguishable o ncerned with a situation where d to exist altogether due to s duty to consider such subsequ necessity pleaded. The factual b ement that had become wholly re whom requirement was claimed. ed on the need of a person w ojected in the rent petition, rema d. The principle laid down in ather, the legal position that su at or nullify the very basis of the ceedings do not abate, as the nece

e survivability of cause of action ent of dependants or other fam mpleadment of the daughter-in-l al representatives serves only n of the proceedings. The person be added as a party to the petit The personal necessity, being o ly member, is not rendered inva eaded. The proceedings, therefo ment in Kedar Nath Agrawal's c on facts. In that case, the Supre e the requirement pleaded by subsequent events, and the Co uent events when they strike at backdrop of the said case involve edundant as a result of the death In the present matter, the cause who continues to exist, and wh ains entirely unaffected by the de the above judgment is theref ubsequent events are relevant o e claim supports the conclusion t essity survives intact.

- n in mily law one alid ore, case eme ourt ed a h of e of hose eath fore only

8.

Eve consequence so succeeded to th already pleaded shifts the person of action. A con projected in fav the intent of the

9.

Vie are well-reasone of action continu abated. No juri established so as

10.

For present revision any interference

11.

12.

Pen

December 03, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe en the Will set up by the legal ought to be attributed by the pe he estate of the deceased landlor d in favour of the daughter-in-la n entitled to prosecute the petiti ntrary interpretation would unju vour of dependants merely due to Rent Act. ewed from any angle, the findin ed and legally sound. The person ues, and no ground is made out t isdictional error, perversity, or s to justify interference under Ar r the reasons recorded above, n petition. The impugned order e. e revision petition is accordingly nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

l representatives does not hold etitioner. The fact that the son rd does not efface the requirem aw. The landlord's demise mer on but does not wipe out the ca ustly defeat bona fide requireme o the landlord's death, which is ngs recorded by the Rent Contro nal requirement survives, the ca to declare that the proceedings h failure to exercise jurisdiction rticle 227. this Court finds no merit in dated 27.10.2025 does not call y dismissed. stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- has ment rely ause ents not oller ause ave