Civil Revision No.2463 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: April 29, 2008 M/s Carona Limited, Registered Office, New Udyog Mandir, Compound Mugal Lane, Mahim (West), Mumbai. .....Petitioner VERSUS Mrs.Tej Kaur Bains ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.S.P.Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.S.Rana, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by Rent Controller, Jalandhar declining the leave to defend the petition filed for his eviction by respondent-landlord under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Civil Revision No.2463 of 2008 : 2 : (for short “the Act”). Respondent-landlord had filed this petition for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she is NRI and has retired from her business in U.K. and thus she alongwith her son Amandeep Singh Bains intends to settle in India. Pleading that they would require possession of this shop immediately, petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act is filed. The petitioner appeared in response to the notice and filed an application seeking leave to contest the petition. The petitioner raised various objections including the status of the respondent as NRI. It is also pointed out that the petition was filed through an attorney and that the respondent was still residing in England. Plea regarding the bar of the petition under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and Order II Rule 2 CPC is also taken. It is pointed out that respondent had earlier filed an ejectment petition, which was dismissed on 25.4.2006. Reference is also made to another ejectment petition No.12 of 1996, which was also dismissed by the court of Rent Controller on 20.5.2005. It is on this basis pleaded that one attempt after another is being made by the respondent to get this property vacated and that she would not need this property for her use and that the need as projected is not bonafide. Heard Mr.S.P.Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. When notice of motion is issued to the respondent. Mr.R.P.S.Rana, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent as the respondent has filed caveat petition. He accepts Civil Revision No.2463 of 2008 : 3 : notice on behalf of the respondent and says that he is ready with the argument and the case be heard on merits and decided. Mr.S.P.Jain contends that in the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to contest, the petitioner has raised triable issues, which would need adjudication and accordingly the impugned order declining leave to contest suffers from material irregularity and would call for interference by this court. According to Mr.Jain, the petitioner has not only raised objection in regard to status of the respondent as NRI, but has pointed out to the material on record which would go to cast doubt on the bonafide need of the respondent so far as her personal necessity was concerned. The counsel has made a grievance that the fact in regard to filing of two earlier petitions for ejectment has clearly been pleaded in the application moved by the petitioner, but still the court observed that no document has been placed on record. The fact that earlier two ejectment petitions were indeed filed by the respondent has in fact not been disputed by the counsel representing the respondent. This fact was even conceded before the court of Rent Controller. From this, Mr.Jain would contend that the aim is somehow to seek ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the shop and that is why more than one attempt was made where the respondent had remained unsuccessful. It is in this background that now a petition has been filed seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity, though in fact there is no bonafide necessity of the shop by the respondent for personal use. The contention is that veracity of need is not to be checked at this stage, but is only required to be Civil Revision No.2463 of 2008 : 4 : seen if any triable issue is made out or not for which leave to contest can be granted. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, would seriously contest this aspect and would say that filing of previous petitions cannot be a bar for the respondent to file the present petition and accordingly the court has rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner for grant of leave to contest. In this regard, counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of N.R.Narayan Swamy Versus B.Francis Jagan, 2001(3) Civil Court Cases 359 (S.C.). It is held in this case that subsequent petition is not barred even if the first petition is dismissed and bonafide requirement or non-payment of rent is a recurring cause. Though the issue agitated in the case is the one which is noticed, but learned counsel has left a number of other judgments, which would not be in issue having regard to the limited point that arises for determination in this case at this stage. Reasoning advanced on behalf of the petitioner is required to be appreciated properly. The line of reasoning by the counsel representing the petitioner is limited and to the effect that the conduct of the respondent in filing one petition after another is aimed to seek eviction of the tenant by one way or the other and this would certainly go to cast doubt on the plea of bonafide need as raised in the present petition. Another reason which has been advanced in this regard is that this petition is filed through an attorney on support of an affidavit which has also been attested in England. It is, thus, pleaded that the NRI has even not returned to India which would also Civil Revision No.2463 of 2008 : 5 : reflect on the need which is being projected. In my considered opinion, on the basis of the plea raised by the petitioner, triable issue would arise in regard to status of the respondent as NRI and also in regard to the fact whether need as projected is bonafide or not. On that count, it is not possible to hold that no triable issues would arise in this case for which leave to contest could be declined to the petitioner. The impugned order, as such, cannot be sustained. Same is set-aside. Case will go back to the court of Rent Controller, who would give opportunity to the parties to raise a proper pleading giving opportunity to the petitioner to contest the petition and thereafter decide the same on merits in accordance with law. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. April 29, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE