Civil Revision No. 5797 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5797 of 2008 Date of decision : 8.3.2010 Parshotam Lal Petitioner Versus Rattan Singh Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Sheweta Bawa, Advocate for Mr. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.Kartikay, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent, who is a specific landlord under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), applied for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment that he requires the tenanted premises for his personal bonafide necessity. The petitioner-tenant resisted the plea by averring that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties inasmuch as he had obtained the premises on rent (not from Rattan Singh-respondent-landlord) but from Mst. Swaran Kaur @ Bhajan Kaur to whom he is regularly paying the rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. It was further averred that the petitioner-tenant has also been paying the rent to Jit Singh, Santokh Singh, Bimla Rani and Civil Revision No. 5797 of 2008 -2- *** Harbans Kaur at different points of time being the attorney of Swaran Kaur @ Bhajan Kaur. The learned Rent Controller granted the petition in toto by recording a finding of fact that the respondent-landlord had been proved on record to be an NRI who is owner of the tenanted premises for the last more 5 years and who is entitled to get the tenanted premises vacated for the personal bonafide necessity. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-landlord cannot validly claim to be a landlord of the tenanted premises viz-a-viz the petitioner-tenant as no such relationship existed between the parties to the cause before this Court. The plea merely deserves to be noticed to be negatived. The respondent-landlord is none else or other than the husband of Swaran Kaur aforementioned. There is ample documentation on record to prove that it is the respondent-landlord who is owner of the disputed premises. In that view of things, the landlord has, in any case to be taken to be landlord of the tenanted premises qua the tenant. There is ample material on the file to prove that the respondent-landlord is owner of the disputed premises and is an NRI who has been able to prove the pre-requisites for grant of an ejectment of action against the petitioner-tenant. There is categorical material available on the file to prove that he requires the tenanted premises for utilisation by his son who wants to run a business over there. Though there is evidence to the effect that Civil Revision No. 5797 of 2008 -3- *** concerned son of his has been residing in Canada since 1991, the entitlement on the part of the respondent-landlord to settle his son in India cannot be denied, particularly when there is material obtaining on the record to the effect that concerned son of the respondent- landlord is unemployed. In that view of things, the learned Rent Controller was fully justified in negativing the application under Section 18-A of the Act which had been filed by the petitioner-tenant to seek the leave to defend. It was also argued that respondent-landlord, being one of the co-owners cannot claim entitlement to file ejectment petition. The plea raised is totally devoid of force in view of the fact that there is plethora of law on the point that one of the co-owners can claim the ejectment of a tenant, particularly when there is nothing on record to the effect that other co-owners have any objection in the relevant behalf. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 08, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE