E-Paper
Chandigarh: Advocate shoots landlady during court-ordered eviction in Sector 42
The accused, identified as advocate JPS Chaddha, 67, allegedly opened fire with his licensed double-barrel shotgun as officials attempted to execute the court-ordered eviction. He was overpowered and arrested on the spot
A 57-year-old woman was shot and injured by her tenant, an advocate practising in the Punjab and Haryana high court (HC), when she arrived with police and court officials to take possession of her Sector 42-C flat on Saturday after a 13-year long legal battle.
The accused, identified as advocate JPS Chaddha, 67, allegedly opened fire with his licensed double-barrel shotgun as officials attempted to execute the court-ordered eviction. He was overpowered and arrested on the spot.
While the accused had allegedly aimed for her head, he missed the target but the victim, Manjinder Kaur, a resident of Sector 19, sustained splinter injuries to her face. She was rushed to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), where she is undergoing treatment and is said to be out of danger.
According to police, when Kaur, along with court staff and police personnel, reached her second-floor apartment to take possession of the property, they found the door was locked.
As they attempted to gain entry, Chaddha appeared on the balcony and allegedly shot at Kaur, injuring her face.
Deputy superintendent of police (DSP, South West) Dhiraj Kumar said police received information about the firing around 1.30 pm. He said the court had authorised the officials to break open the locks, if necessary, to enforce the eviction order. The DSP said the accused fired at the victim while they were trying to enter the house.
13-year-long battle
The legal battle between the two had been going on since 2013. According to the HC judgement on Chaddha’s revision petition which was decided on February 25 2026, Kaur and her husband Rajinder Singh Koura had filed an ejectment petition under the Punjab Rent Act on April 17, 2013. The tenant, despite being an advocate, had not appeared in court and the case proceeded ex-parte. On May 15, 2014, the ejectment petition was allowed and the tenant was directed to hand over possession within three months.
The tenant filed an application to set aside the court order, which was dismissed on December 17, 2014. A civil revision petition was subsequently filed by the advocate in 2015 which was allowed by the HC on November 29, 2016, and the ex parte petition was set aside.
The tenant had examined one witness, a clerk from the district courts complex in Sector 43 after which he again stopped appearing in court and the case proceeded ex-parte from November 22, 2019. In February 2020, the tenant filed an execution petition. This was dismissed in 2023 and the tenant filed a revision petition, which was decided by the court in February 2026.
In her judgement, judge Alka Sarin observed, “The endeavour, in the present case, seems to be to delay the matter on one pretext or the other. In the impugned order dated April 5, 2023 it has been noticed that the present application was filed by the tenant-petitioner after almost a year of having put in appearance on May 16, 2022. There is nothing on the record to even remotely suggest that the tenant-petitioner made any effort to follow up regarding the certified copy. In any case, as noticed above, there is no bar in filing the appeal alongwith an application for exemption from filing the certified copy as the order had already been uploaded on December 12, 2019. This is a classic case where the landlord-respondents are waiting to reap the fruits of the eviction order in their favour which is being delayed on the basis of hyper-technical pleas being raised by the tenant-petitioner.”
Was on medication, reacted out of fear, says son
Following the incident, Chaddha’s son, Dhruvansh Pratap Singh, claimed his father was on medication and had reacted out of fear. He alleged that police should have tried to calm him after seeing him on the balcony. Singh said the family had been in possession of the property for 36 years and claimed there was a stay order in their favour with the next hearing scheduled for August 3. He alleged that police resorted to “hooliganism” despite the family having paid six years’ rent in advance.
