Civil Revision No.2787of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: May 21, 2008 Surjit Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS Vijay Pal Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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: Mr.D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sushant Batish, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Cheema, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The respondent-tenant has been granted leave to contest the petition filed by the petitioner seeking his eviction under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The tenant filed this application raising various defences including the fact that the petitioner is not an NRI and has no locus to Civil Revision No.2787of 2007 : 2 : invoke the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. Other prayer that she does not have any intention to come back and settle in India to challenge the personal need of the petitioner is also raised. When the notice of this application was issued, the petitioner-landlady filed reply. The allegations made by the respondent-tenant were denied. The petitioner also disclosed that fees for sanctioning the site plan where she wanted to start her business has also been deposited to justify her need for personal necessity of this shop. Significantly the respondent has made allegation against the petitioner that she advanced threat to him and made an attempt to interfere in his possession over the shop. Respondent has also disclosed that the petitioner approached him to purchase the shop for Rs.ten lacs or to vacate the same by getting Rs.one lac. This was refused by the respondent which was in the presence of Sanjeev Kumar son of Kasturi Lal and Harmesh Singh son of Hari Singh. When the respondent did not agree to this proposal, the petitioner had got the roof of her adjoining shop demolished with a plan to cause damage to the shop in occupation of the respondent. This aspect was duly considered by the court. Though the petitioner had denied the allegation of the demolition of the roof to be absurd, but it is noticed by the court that she had taken the ground that she wants to start a big business for which she would need both the shops, which, according to her were in dilapidated condition. It was not disputed by her that the roofs of the adjoining shops had fallen down which was now the case set up by her. The allegation Civil Revision No.2787of 2007 : 3 : made by the respondent in this background that the petitioner had got the roof of the adjoining shop demolished was believed by the court. It was noticed that the shop had not fallen down but in fact was demolished. This being the position, the court rightly noticed that parties are to be given liberty to prove their respective contentions and as such has granted leave to the respondent to contest the petition. The triable issues otherwise also appear to be emerging from the varying stands taken by the parties, which would need adjudication. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the order impugned in the present revision petition. Dismissed. May 21, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE