IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3583 of 2007 Date of decision: 10th November, 2008 Mohan Lal … Petitioner Versus Tarsem Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Tarsem Singh Virdi is said to have purchased the property from Harbans Singh. This fact is borne out from a judgment rendered by Civil Court in a suit, which was instituted by Harbans Singh against Tarsem Singh Virdi, claiming himself to be owner by way of adverse possession. Civil Court held that sale deed dated 2nd November, 1966 is an admitted document. Civil Court has not believed the plea of Harbans Singh that the sale deed was without any consideration. The Civil Court further held that Harbans Singh was in permissive use of the suit property. It was further held that Tarsem Singh Virdi has miserably failed to prove that Harbans Singh is in possession of the suit property as a tenant. The Parties are in agreement that Tarsem Singh Virdi has instituted an eviction petition against Harbans Singh, which is pending before the Rent Controller. Present petitioner Mohan Lal has sought leave to defend to a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, preferred by Tarsem Singh Virdi seeking ejectment of Mohan Lal (petitioner) from the shop, which has been fully detailed and described in the head note of the eviction petition. In application for leave to defend, it has been stated that Mohan Lal is a tenant under Harbans Singh and has been paying him rent regularly. Civil Revision No. 3583 of 2007 The Rent Controller, relying upon the findings of the Civil Court, had declined leave to defend. Once the Civil Court has held that Harbans Singh was in permissive use of the property and Mohan Lal claim himself to be tenant under Harbans Singh, in these circumstances, a proper and just adjudication was required as to how Mohan Lal came in possession of the shop. Therefore, it was incumbent upon Tarsem Singh Virdi to establish himself as landlord qua Mohan Lal petitioner. This requires evidence to be adduced by the parties. Therefore, by declining the leave to defend to Mohan Lal, fair play and equal opportunity has not been afforded. Therefore, order of the Rent Controller is set aside and the application of tenant Mohan Lal that he be granted leave to defend, is accepted. Mr. Sandhawalia states that Harbans Singh has succeeded to prolong the eviction before the Rent Controller and proceedings against Harbans Singh are pending before the Rent Controller since the year 2001. Learned counsel further states that in case specific direction for conclusion of the proceedings is not given, then the object, for which Section 13-B was enacted in favour of NRIs, shall be rendered infutile. To counter this, Mr.Aurora has stated that eviction petition against Mohan Lal was instituted in year 2006. Taking into consideration, the fact that Section 13-B was enacted to facilitate early decision in the proceedings initiated by the NRIs, it is directed that Rent Controller shall conclude the proceedings within one year from the receipt of certified copy of this order. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 10, 2008 rps 2