Civil Revision No. 8012 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8012 of 2010 Date of Decision : 12.07.2011 Paramjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Shiv Kant Kutwal ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amarjit Malkan, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara whereby a prayer to contest the eviction application filed under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been rejected and consequently petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises in dispute within two months from the date of the order. At the time of motion hearing, the following order was passed on the basis of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner:- “The respondent/landlord is a co-owner of six shops, situated at Phagwara. In the eviction petition, the respondent/landlord has pleaded that he requires the building for opening a restaurant and his residence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that certain portion of the building is already in possession of the respondent/landlord. He relies upon Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh 2005(1) Rent Control Reporter 194 to contend that where the property is jointly owned by the landlord with his brothers, it is a triable issue. Issue notice of motion for 25.1.2011. Till then, dispossession of the petitioner, from the Civil Revision No. 8012 of 2010 1 demised premises, shall remain stayed.” The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner at the motion hearing is squarely covered against him by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 4025 of 2006 titled as Smt. Bachan Kaur and others Versus Kabal Singh and another decided on 26th April, 2011, wherein it has been held that a co-owner, who is a non-resident Indian even when other co-owners are non-resident Indian can not maintain a petition for the ejectment for the benefit of all the co-owners. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to raise an argument that the petitioner is having an American Passport/British Passport cannot be non-resident Indian as he is not a citizen of India. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in view of the interpretation of the definition of non-resident Indian, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini (2005) 12, SCC 778. Learned counsel has further argued that it is the landlord's own case that he needs the demised premises for his business and residential purpose and the building being non-residential, cannot be got vacated for the purpose of residence of the landlord. However a perusal of the impugned order would show that argument was not raised by the petitioner before the Rent Controller. Neither the aforesaid argument was taken by the petitioner in his application for leave to contest. No other argument has been raised. Thus, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. 12.7.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge Civil Revision No. 8012 of 2010 1