IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 876 of 2008 Date of Decision : 11.9.2008 Kamal Raj Bansal ...... Petitioner Versus Rajpaul Singh ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jaswinder Kumar Bhatti, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) The petitioner has been declined the leave to defend the petition filed for his eviction under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the 'Act'). He has impugned the said order by filing the present revision petition. 2. Rajpal Singh respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from a shop bearing Municipal unit No. VIII/775 situated at Chamber road, Moga on the grounds (i) that he purchased the demised shop on May 13, 1975; (ii) that he is Non-resident Indian; (iii) that he has returned to India with his wife on August 20, 2007; and (iv) that he required the demised shop for his own use and occupation. 3. On notice of the application, tenant appeared and filed application under Section 18-A of the Act for leave to contest the application for ejectment but the same was dismissed by impugned order and the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop under Section 13-B of the Act. 4. Grounds pleaded before this Court by the revision- petitioner are that the respondent-landlord was not the Civil Revision No. 876 of 2008 (2) landlord/owner of the demised shop because the rent of the demised shop was being paid by him to the sister of the respondent-landlord on his instructions and as such, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent so, petition under Section 13-B of the Act was not maintainable. 5. Against this, learned counsel for the respondent- landlord has submitted that respondent-landlord filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the revision-petitioner from changing the nature of the demised shop before civil Court, Moga. It was pleaded in paragraphs no.3 and 4 of the plaint that respondent- landlord was owner in possession of the demised shop and revision- petitioner was his tenant. Revision-petitioner filed Written-statement admitting that respondent-landlord was the owner of the demised shop and he (revision-petitioner) was his tenant. In view of this admission on the part of the revision-petitioner, it is proved that respondent is owner/landlord of the demised shop and revision- petitioner is his tenant. This being so, it hardly matters that he used to pay the rent of the demised shop to the sister of the respondent- landlord. 6. In face of it, learned counsel for the revision- petitioner has submitted that suit for permanent injunction was not qua the demised shop but in respect of other shop. Copy of the plaint filed in civil suit by respondent-landlord and the Written-statement have been perused. The suit pertains to shop bearing Municipal Unit No. VIII/775 situated at Chamber road, Moga, the shop regarding which, the present ejectment application was filed. Thus, argument of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner is fallacious and rather, mis-conceived. 7. To get the ejectment under Section 13-B of the Act, a landlord has to prove four ingredients (i) that he is a Non- resident Indian; (ii) that he has returned to India; (iii) that he is owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment before the Controller and (iv) that the requirement of accommodation by him or his dependent is genuine. Civil Revision No. 876 of 2008 (3) Once, these four ingredients are proved there is no scope for the tenant to contest the said application under Section 13-B of the Act. It has been so ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court also in Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 492. The only ground taken by the revision-petitioner was that respondent-landlord was not the owner of the demised shop which he could not prove from any angle. On the other hand, respondent-landlord has proved (i) that he was owner of the demised shop for the last five years; (ii) that he was Non-resident Indian; (iii) that he has returned to India and (iv) that he requires the shop for his own use. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Rent Controller refusing to grant leave to contest the application under section 18-A of the Act. 8. In upshot, for the reasons recorded supra, the revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 11.9.2008. SN