Civil Revision No.3578 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3578 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 3, 2009. M/s Brij Lal Satpal ...Petitioner(s) v. Shreans Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Malhar singh Dhami, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for respondent No.1. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved at the order dated 27.1.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara whereby leave to defend sought by him under Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has been declined. The petitioner is a tenant in a shop, fully descripted in the eviction petition and located within the municipal limits of Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The premises was purchased by the father of the respondent-landlord vide sale deed dated 7.10.1959, who died in the year 1977 and his estate was inherited by his five sons and five daughters, Civil Revision No.3578 of 2009 -: 2 :- including the respondent. The respondent filed the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act being a 'specified landlord', inter-alia, on the plea that he is a Non-resident Indian (NRI) settled in England and now wants to come back to India to start his own business and, thus, requires the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation. Section 13-B of the Act contemplates that where owner is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and wants to return India and requires any residential/scheduled/non-scheduled building for his use or for the use of anyone ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her, he may apply to the Rent Controller for immediate possession of such a building. However, such a right to apply shall be available to the NRI landlord only after a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of the building and shall be available only once during his life time. Section 18-A of the Act lays down special summary procedure for disposal of applications under Section 13-A or 13-B of the Act. It provides that save where in a case leave to defend is granted, the Rent Controller shall pass an order of eviction after effecting service upon the tenant in the format prescribed in Schedule-II. However, in case where leave to contest is granted, the Rent Controller shall commence the hearing on a date not later than one month from the date leave to contest is granted to the tenant and shall hear application on day-to- day basis and conclude the same. The legislative intentment behind the afore-stated provisions is explicit that a 'specified landlord' is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant through a summary procedure. It is in this backdrop that a tenant is required to raise a triable issue to seek leave to defend. Civil Revision No.3578 of 2009 -: 3 :- In the instant case, the learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the documents appended with the eviction petition, has rightly held that the respondent-landlord is a co-owner in the subject premises from last more than five years as after the death of his father in the year 1977, it was inherited by him jointly along with his brothers and sisters. Similarly, the respondent-landlord has produced his passport which establishes that he is an NRI staying in UK and was originally born at Phagwara, District Kapurthala. In the light of these admitted facts, there was possibly no reason, whatsoever, for the learned Rent Controller to grant leave to defend to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail both the above noticed factual conclusions. No factual or legal error has been pointed out in the impugned order. No case of interference with the impugned order by this revisional court is made out. Dismissed. July 03, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge