IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5922 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.11.2009 Dr.Capt.G.B.S.Madan .....Petitioner versus Kuldip Singh Deol and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Mohd.Yousaf, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 19.5.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlords under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), has been declined and consequential eviction order has been passed. C.R. No.5922 of 2008 (O&M) 2 The respondents filed the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act, inter-alia, claiming themsleves to be NRI-landlord-cum-owners of the demised premises, namely, 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th floors of Both Nos.18, 19 & 20, Model Town Market, Jalandhar. The petitioner's eviction was sought on the ground that the demised premises is required by them for their bonafide personal use and occupation, who have already returned to India and want to start their own business in the demised premises. Upon notice, petitioner-tenant applied for leave to contest, inter-alia, on the plea that: (i) there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; (ii) the respondents are not the owners of the property in dispute; (iii) the property in dispute is comprising three different buildings, therefore, one eviction petition was not maintainable; (iv) the respondents are not the Non-Residential Indians as they were never born in India and (v) they do not require the property in dispute for their bonafide need. It was also alleged that several commercial and non- commercial properties situated at Lal Nagar, Parkash Nagar and Model Town of Jalandhar and Urban Estate of Phagwara, are owned and possessed by them. All the above noticed contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant have been repelled by the Rent Controller and rightly so, for the reasons that the respondents have brought on record six sale deeds dated 10.11.1983, 14.11.1983, 29.11.1983 and 26.4.1984 whereby all the booths in question were purchased by them from Tarsem Lal, Smt.Roopa and Mohinder Kaur. These sale deeds prove beyond any doubt the C.R. No.5922 of 2008 (O&M) 3 ownership of the respondents qua the booths in dispute. The sale deeds further prove that the respondents were the owners of the property in dispute for the period of more than 5 years before filing of the eviction petition. Similarly, the rent note dated 27.8.1992 proves the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In order to prove their Non-Residential-Indian status, the respondents have placed on record the copies of their passports issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which show them to be the British citizens of Indian origin. The respondents, thus, fulfill the ingredients of Section 2 (dd) of the Act. Similarly, the allegations that the respondents own several commercial properties, have been found to be vague and evasive as the petitioner-tenant failed to furnish the particulars of any such properties. The respondents, on the other hand, have specifically denied their ownership qua several commercial properties. They have categorically stated that besides the booths in dispute, they own one more property in Parkash Nagar, Jalandhar, which is a residential house in which they are presently living after returning to India. So far as the genuineness of need of the respondents is concerned, it is their categoric case that they have returned to India to settle down permanently and want to start their own business from the demised premises. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, once a NRI-landlord C.R. No.5922 of 2008 (O&M) 4 specifically pleads his personal necessity, there is a statutory presumption in his favour unless rebutted by the tenant by placing cogent and strong material in support thereof. The petitioner could not point out any other commercial property owned by the respondents where they can start their business or that they have taken benefit of Section 13-B of the Act in respect of any such other property. In the absence of any cogent and strong material at the stage of `leave to contest', no ground to interfere with the impugned order, by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is made out Dismissed. 25-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE