CR No.4464 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4464 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 29.8.2011 Balbir Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dr. Narinder Dev Dhadwal ......Respondent(s) CR No.4465 of 2009(O&M) Harbans Lal ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dr. Narinder Dev Dhadwal ......Respondent(s) CR No.4466 of 2009(O&M) Mehanga Ram ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dr. Narinder Dev Dhadwal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sanjeev K. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of three revision petitions i.e. CR Nos.4464 to 4466 of 2009 in which similar question of law on similar facts is raised. However, for the convenience sake, the facts are being taken from CR No.4464 of 2009. The respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the 'Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner from shop No.1 as described in the site plan annexed to the petition and described in the ejectment application on the ground that the demised shop was a part of the main building which was CR No.4464 of 2009(O&M) 2 purchased by late Sh. Shiv Saran Dass, his father. The respondent was an NRI and was owner of the demised premises under occupation of the petitioner for the last more than 5 years. The said shop was let out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of ` 400/- besides house tax. The respondent requires the premises as he had returned to India. He intends to start his own clinic and does not possess any other place in the area of Phagwara. It was further averred that the respondent would occupy the premises himself and shall not transfer the same. It was further mentioned that he has filed similar petitions against other tenants separately. Since the petitioner refused to hand over the vacant possession of the demised shop, necessity arose to file the instant ejectment petition. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared and filed an application seeking permission to defend the ejectment petition on the ground that the respondent was not the owner of the shop in dispute and the sale deeds do not pertain to the disputed property. The boundaries and measurements of the property in dispute were incorrect. The respondent does not require the demised shop bonafidely. The shop in dispute and other shops under the tenancy of other tenants, namely, Mehanga Ram, Harbans Lal and Ganshyam were not part and parcel of one building. There was separate tenancy of each shop. The respondent has filed ejectment petition against the aforesaid persons. He is not a Non Resident Indian and does not intend to settle permanently in India. It was further averred that previously, the respondent was running his clinic in Gandhi Chowk, Phagwara, and about 15 years back when he went abroad, his son used to run his clinic in the shop situated at Gandhi Chowk, Phagwara in the same shop and now his son has also migrated to foreign country and the said shop was sold by the son of the respondent. The respondent has also sufficient place for his residence at the back of the shop in question, measuring 19 marlas. While denying all other CR No.4464 of 2009(O&M) 3 averments made in the petition, a prayer was made to contest the petition. The said application was contested by the respondent- landlord inter alia pleading that he was owner of the shop in dispute being legal heir of late Shiv Saran Dass. His requirement was bona fide and he was an NRI and owner of the demised premises for the last more than 5 years. While denying all other averments made in the application, a prayer for dismissal of the said application was made, with a further prayer of ejectment of the petitioner. The respondent also placed on record a site plan, copy of passport and copies of sale deeds to show that he was owner/landlord of the demised premises for the last more than 5 years and was a person of Indian origin settled outside India. Vide impugned order, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of leave to defend, the Rent Controller found that the respondent was a Non-Resident Indian, who was born in India and a person of Indian origin settled abroad. The Rent Controller further found that there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent was the owner of the suit property for more than 5 years before initiating the ejectment proceedings and he was having bona fide need. It is relevant to note that the ejectment petitions were also filed by the respondent-landlord against other tenants who were occupying other shops which form part and parcel of the same building and vide the orders impugned in these civil revisions (i.e. CR Nos.4465 and 4466 of 2009), the Rent Controller refused to grant leave to contest to the petitioner-tenants in those cases. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned orders have been passed against the well settled principle of law. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that at the stage of motion hearing, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the CR No.4464 of 2009(O&M) 4 petitioners that the benefit under Section 13-B of the Act is available when an NRI returns to India and the building which has been let out is required for his or her use and the above mentioned relief is available only once in life time of such an owner and further sub-section (2) makes it absolutely clear that where the owner referred to in sub-section (1) has let out more than one residential building or scheduled building and/or non residential building, it shall be open to him/her to make an application under that sub- section in respect of only one residential building or one scheduled building and/or one non residential building each chosen by him or her and thus, the benefit is extended to only one residential/scheduled/non residential building and since in the present case, the respondent herein was seeking to evict several tenants from several non residential buildings and the same was not provided under the Act, therefore, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. However, the aforesaid argument as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while approving the view taken by this Court in M/s Bhandari General Store and Anr. Versus Makhan Singh Grewal 2006 (1) RCR (Rent) 306, wherein it has been held authoritatively that an NRI landlord/owner is entitled to evict several tenants who are occupying a part/shop of residential/schedule/non residential building which are part of one main building. There is no dispute that all the shops in the instant revision petitions forms part and parcel of one main building belonging to the respondent-landlord and thus, the argument as raised is not available to the petitioners. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the bona fide need of the respondent is not proved from the record and in fact, the Rent Controller has not given any finding in this regard. CR No.4464 of 2009(O&M) 5 According to the principle of law as culled out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini, 2006 AIR (SC) 59, a Non-Resident Indian landlord should be owner of the demised premises for five years before he applies to the Rent Controller for possession; he should require the same for his own use or for use of any one ordinarily living with him and is dependent upon him and such right could be availed of only once during the life time of such an owner/NRI landlord and the tenant will be entitled to leave to defend only if he makes out a strong case to challenge those grounds. Before this Court, it could not be disputed that the respondent- landlord is the owner of the property for the last more than 5 years before initiation of the ejectment proceedings and is an NRI. Once that is so, in view of Section 18-A (4) of the Act, the presumption has to be drawn in favour of the landlord that his need is bona fide and the said presumption can be rebutted by the tenant by showing a strong/cogent evidence. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clearly made out that the petitioners have not brought any fact of worth to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the bona fide need of the respondent-landlord. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the impugned order in refusing grant of leave to defend to the petitioners. Thus, all these revision petitions which are of no merit are dismissed. August 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.4464 of 2009(O&M) 6 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4466 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 29.8.2011 Mehanga Ram ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dr. Narinder Dev Dhadwal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sanjeev K. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. For orders, see CR No.4464 of 2009. August 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.4464 of 2009(O&M) 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4465 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 29.8.2011 Harbans Lal ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dr. Narinder Dev Dhadwal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sanjeev K. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. For orders, see CR No.4464 of 2009. August 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE