CR No.5416 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5416 of 2009 Date Of Decision: 18.09.2009 **** Babu Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Pawan Kumar . . . . Respondent **** 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? **** Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Divay Sarup, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed by the landlord who is aggrieved at the order dated 15th October, 2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar granting leave to contest to the respondent-tenant in an eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention here that the petitioner-landlord has averred that the demised premises was purchased by his father by way of sale deed dated 25.7.1957 who died on 16.4.1998. The petitioner has inherited the demised premises and has become owner thereof. He has further averred that he is Non- Resident Indian (NRI) permanently settled in Canada and bona fidely requires the demised premises for opening a restaurant-cum-kitty hall and since he fulfills all the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act, is entitled to get immediate possession of the premises by ejecting the respondent-tenant through summary procedure. CR No.5416 of 2009 - 2 - In the application seeking leave to contest, one of the plea raised by the respondent-tenant was, that the wife of the petitioner is also the owner in possession of a vacant portion of the same premises on the rear side where the proposed business can be started. The petitioner-landlord’s case, on the other hand, appears to be that the aforesaid property has been purchased by his wife subsequently and it is not a part and parcel of the property inherited by him from his deceased father. The Rent Controller has observed that though the petitioner is a ‘specified landlord’ within the meaning of Section 13-B of the Act and he is also the owner of the demised premises from the last over 5 years, but still the availability of vacant portion on the rear side of the demised premises makes out a triable issue. The Rent Controller has observed that :- “In the present case the applicant/respondent has placed on record some photographs showing existence of a hall and in reply to the application the respondent/petitioner has alleged that the vacant space is available behind the building and that space is also owned by the petitioner and can be put in use if required. He has not denied the fact that he has constructed a big hall measuring 1000 sq. ft. approximately and has let out the same in favour of M/s. Mega Mart and that the photographs showing existence of the hall at the back of the building in question, creates doubt about the contention of the respondent/petitioner about the need of the respondent/petitioner. So if respondent/petitioner has constructed a hall on the vacant space which as per the case of the respondent/petitioner was required by him for constructing modern restaurant-cum-kitty hall, then there are sufficient ground for allowing the applicant/respondent to leave to contest. As such the application moved by applicant/respondent is allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioner-specified-landlord has approached this Court. Counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. The petitioner has also placed on record some additional documents including the site plans of the building purchased by his wife and of the demised CR No.5416 of 2009 - 3 - premises. There does not appear to be any serious dispute that both the premises adjoin each other and prima facie integrated. The five shops, out of which four open on the main road and one on the approach road are occupied by five different tenants whereas the entire portion shown in green colour including the vacant godown is in possession of the petitioner-landlord/his wife. The petitioner’s contention that the vacant site opens in a private lane and cannot be used for the purposes of restaurant, is a question of fact to be decided by the Rent Controller on the basis of evidence. It will be too presumptuous to draw any definite inference in that regard at this stage. For the reason afore stated, I am of the considered view that no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Rent Controller in granting ‘leave to contest’ to the respondent-tenant. However, it does not mean that the eviction petition filed by the petitioner has lost status of special proceedings to be decided out of turn. In other words, even after granting leave to contest, the Rent Controller is obligated to respect to the legislative intent behind Section 18A (6) of the Act, which contemplates hearing on day- to-day basis and decide the eviction application within one month. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the pendency of the total cases, the Rent Controller is directed not to grant more than three opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence and then decide the eviction petition on merits by 28th February, 2010. Disposed of. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 07.09.2009 shonkar