IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5222 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.09.2009 T.S.Chandhok .....Petitioner versus Smt.Gunwant Kaur .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 26.8.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana dismissing his application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the application for leave to contest. The respondent-landlady/Non-Resident-Indian has filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') against the petitioner-tenant in respect of the residential premises situated at Khurd Mohalla, Old Civil Hospital Road-B-X-796 (old) B-XI-1827 (new), Ludhiana. C.R. No.5222 of 2009 (O&M) 2 On receipt of notice in the said eviction petition, the petitioner-tenant has moved an application for leave to contest on 02.1.2009, inter-alia, alleging that “it is pertinent to mention here that she even has contacted some Property Dealers of the area who in the first week of November, 2008 visited the tenanted premises and offered to purchase the premises only after it is vacated and the petitioner/respondent has malafide intentions to get the premises vacated for the purpose of sale.” The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the application for leave to contest, to elaborate the aforestated plea by incorporating that the respondent-landlady meanwhile has approached some Commission Agent/Property Dealer for the sale of the house in dispute and that Property Dealer Mr.Sarabjit Singh has sworn in an affidavit to this effect. The said amendment application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide the impugned order dated 26.8.2009 giving rise to this revision petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at some length. In my considered view, the application moved by the petitioner-tenant for amendment of the application for `leave to contest' lacks bonafide and seems to be founded upon a concocted story. The petitioner has already questioned the bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlady in respect of the demised premises. Suffice it to say that the legislature has taken care of the so called apprehension expressed by the petitioner-tenant that the landlady wants to sell the house after C.R. No.5222 of 2009 (O&M) 3 getting it vacated. Section 19 (2) (B) of the Act reads as under: “19. Penalties: xx xx xx (2-B) The owner, who is a Non-resident Indian and who having evicted a tenant from a residential building or a scheduled building and/or non-residential building in pursuance of an order made under Section 13-B does not occupy it for a continuous period of three months from the date of such eviction, or lets out the whole or any part of such building from which the tenant was evicted to any person, other than the tenant in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 13-B, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months or with fine while may be extended to one thousand rupees or both.” It would be seen that if a `NRI'-landlady obtain the eviction order and does not occupy it continuously for 3 months from the date of eviction order or lets out the same in contravention of the provisions, the statute provides penal consequences that includes imprisonment upto 6 months besides fine. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the petitioner by making a toll claim that the respondent-landlady intends to sell the house, is wholly pre-mature and baseless, especially when she, on oath, has denied contacting any property dealer. The decisions relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in (i) Jai Singh versus Man Singh and others, 2008 (3) R.C.R.(Civil) 120; (ii) Arjan Singh versus Bachan Singh and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 712; C.R. No.5222 of 2009 (O&M) 4 (iii) Sat Pal versus Om Parkash, 2007 (2) I.A.R.215, and (iv) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur versus Bhagwan Dass (D) by LRs. 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 165, are totally distinguishable on facts. There is, thus, no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the respondent-landlady, according to the petitioner himself, is about 80 years old, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, is directed to decide the application for leave to contest before 31.10.2009 by giving top priorities to this petition by day to day hearings. Dasti. 14-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE