Civil Revision NO. 641 of 2008 ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 641 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th December, 2009. Mulakh Raj Petitioner through Mr. V.G.Dogra, Advocate Versus Malkiat Singh Respondent through Mr. S.S.Chandi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 641 to 643 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts have been extracted from Civil Revision No. 641 of 2008. [2]. The respondent – landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [in short the Act] seeking eviction of the petitioner from Shop No. 4 forming part of Property MC No.1896/V, situated on Mehtapur Road, Nakodar, District Jalandhar, inter-alia, on the ground that he purchased the land measuring One Kanal (old) vide registered Sale Deed dated 1.5.1967 and thereafter raised construction of a single unit big building comprising four shops, six rooms and court-yard thereupon and is owner of the said premises for a period of more than five years before filing of the eviction petition. The shops were Civil Revision NO. 641 of 2008 ::-2-:: let out to various tenants including one to the petitioner. The respondent further averred that he is a Non-Resident-Indian, who went to England in 1960 and to whom Passport dated 25.7.1995 and 5.3.1996 has been issued by the Consulate General of India, Birmingham and his status as NRI has been duly certified by the NRI Sabha, Punjab also. The respondent further averred that he was born in village Gill, District Jalandhar and is of Indian origin and has decided to return India and start his own business of Provisional Store for which he wants to demolish all the shops and construct a new building for which he has already filed eviction petitions against other tenants as well. [3]. Upon notice, the petitioner – tenant applied for leave to contest primarily on the plea that the respondent has failed to prove his ownership qua the demised premises. Pertinently, the petitioner did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and admitted his tenancy under the respondent. Bona-fides of the respondent were also questioned. [4]. The Rent Controller, Nakodar vide the impugned order dated 5.12.2007 did not find any triable issue arising out of the pleas taken by the petitioner – tenant while seeking leave to contest and has passed the consequential eviction order, giving rise to this revision petition. [5]. At the out-set, it may be mentioned here that the respondent – landlord had filed similar eviction petitions under Section 13-B of the Act against other tenants also, occupying different portions of the same building and they were also ordered to be evicted. All of them have taken a common plea before this Court Civil Revision NO. 641 of 2008 ::-3-:: that the expression “building” means every 'individual unit' and therefore, only one eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act was maintainable at the instance of the respondent – NRI landlord. Since this very contention was stated to have been raised in a batch of Civil Appeals, these matters were adjourned to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. [6]. It is the conceded position that vide order dated 12.11.2009, Civil Appeal No. 785 of 2008 [Ved Parkash Sharma v Ranbir Singh Sihota & Anr.], and other connected Appeals, have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Otherwise also, the expression “building” used in Section 13-B of the Act explicitly enables a NRI – landlord to seek vacation of one building, whether occupied by one tenant or more. The plea raised by the petitioner - tenant is, thus, legally misconceived and can not sustain. [7]. Nevertheless, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order. It is reiterated on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent has not proved that the sale deed dated 1.5.1967 pertains to the property in dispute and as such he has failed to satisfy one of the basic ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act. [8]. I, however, do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is the categoric case of the respondent that after purchasing the land measuring One Kanal [old] vide registered sale deed dated 1.5.1967, four shops etc. were constructed by him and let out to the different tenants including the petitioner. At that time the property was outside the limits of Municipal committee, Nakodar. The relationship of landlord and Civil Revision NO. 641 of 2008 ::-4-:: tenant between the parties has been admitted by the petitioner. The respondent has produced the records pertaining to assignment of Property Number and assessment of house tax by the Municipality, clearly depicting the ownership of the respondent. The site plan placed on record also tallies with the sale deed and the municipal record. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner – tenant has produced no cogent material to suggest that the Sale Deed pertains to some other property. The respondent has, on the other hand, placed on record sufficient proof to establish his title qua the property in dispute. [9]. In this view of the matter, no interference with the impugned order of eviction is called for. Dismissed. [10]. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner – tenant is running his business in the demised premises and requires some time to make alternative arrangement, he is allowed to retain the possession thereof till 28.02.2010, subject to payment of arrears of rent, if any, as also the future rent by the 10th day of every calendar month. December 15, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE