Civil Revision No. 1968 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1968 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.04.2009 Baljit Singh ......Petitioner Versus Raghubir Singh .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the learned Rent Controller, on 9.3.2009, whereby an ejectment petition filed by the respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as amended by Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001) [ for short referred to as `the Act'], was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted for the reason that the respondent, an NRI, requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, on three grounds. Firstly, that in the Municipal records, the mother of the landlord was recorded as the owner of the premises in dispute. It was on the strength of an affidavit of the mother of the landlord, the ownership rights were transferred in favour of the landlord on 19.4.2004. Therefore, the landlord was not owner of the Civil Revision No. 1968 of 2009 (2) premises in dispute for a period of five years prior to the filing of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Secondly, under Section 13-B of the Act, the landlord is entitled to only one building for his own use and occupation, but the landlord is already in occupation of two shops and the residential building, adjacent to the shop in dispute on the back side. Therefore, possession of additional shop, cannot be sought by the landlord in the summary proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act. It is argued that the issue whether the possession of the additional building can be sought under Section 13-B of the Act, is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment reported as M/s Bhandari General Store Store and another v. Makhan Singh Grewal, 2006(1) Rent Control Reporter 306. Thirdly, it is argued that the landlord has entered into an oral agreement to sell the shop in dispute, therefore, the ejectment sought by the landlord is not for a bona-fide use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller has considered the factum of mother being recorded in the Municipal record and has held that the entries in the Municipal records are for the purposes of collection of the house tax (sic rent) and not to settle the ownership rights. It is correct enunciation of law that the Municipal record, is not a document of title, but is to determine the responsibility of a person for payment of the house tax to the Municipal Council. In fact, the father of the landlord was the owner of the agricultural land. He died on 18.2.1967. It is categorically pleaded by the landlord that three shops were constructed as one building after sanction of the site plan, in the plot inherited by the petitioner from his father. He has relied upon sanction of mutation in his favour and also relied upon Jamabandi for the Civil Revision No. 1968 of 2009 (3) subsequent year. He has pleaded that three shops were constructed in the year 1970-71 and thereafter, house on its back. In the application for leave to defend, the petitioner has not disputed the averments made by the landlord that it is the landlord, who has constructed three shops and the house on its back. The petitioner has not asserted in his application for leave to defend that he has been paying the rent of the shop in dispute of the mother of the landlord and not to the landlord. Therefore, the reliance on the House Tax Assessment Register of the Municipal Council, is not sufficient to grant leave to defend to the petitioner. In respect of the second argument that the landlord has sought possession of additional shop and that the possession of the shop does not fall within the scope of summary proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act, suffice it to state that two shops allegedly in possession of the landlord are vacant. The landlord is in possession of the remaining area, wherein the house has been constructed. The shop in possession of the petitioner is the only area, which is on rent. Such small portion would be required by the landlord for its optimum utilization, as he wants to set up a show room to start his sanitary business after taking over possession of the same. Therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner is not tenable as the petitioner is the only tenant from whom, the landlord is seeking possession in summary proceedings. The argument that the landlord has entered into an oral agreement to sell, is bereft of any serious consideration. The petitioner has alleged that the said oral agreement to sell was executed in the presence of Gurmeet Singh of village Munak Kalan. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Civil Revision No. 1968 of 2009 (4) Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, AIR 2006 SC 59, the tenant has to append the prima-facie evidence in support of plea to seek leave to defend. The oral agreement to sell for a huge sum of Rs.70 lacs, itselt if doubtful. No affidavit of Gurmeet Singh, the alleged witness of the oral agreement was appended with the application. No such argument was raised in support of such plea before the learned trial Court, though such was the plea raised in the application. Therefore, the story put forth by the petitioner regarding the alleged oral agreement to sell is not worthy of any credit. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity with the impugned order, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, the order of ejectment shall not be executed uptil 30.6.2009, provided the petitioner deposits the entire arrears of rent and also furnishes an undertaking before the Rent Controller within two weeks, to vacate the premises on or before 30.6.2009. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16-04-2009 ds