IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4580 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 8th September, 2009. Bharat Rattan Petitioner through Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate Versus Surinder Kumar Respondent through Mr. R.K.Joshi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant to whom leave to contest has been declined by the Rent Controller, Dasuya in an eviction petition filed by the NRI-respondent and a 'specified landlord' under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The demised premises is a shop situated within the municipal limits of Tanda Urmar, Tehsil & District Hoshiarpur on Jalandhar-Pathankot Road. The respondent – landlord has averred that he is a Non- Resident-Indian and is owner of the demised premises for a period of more than five years before filing of the eviction petition and that he wants to settle down in India, therefore, requires the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. C.R. No. 4580 of 2008 . [O&M] :{ 2 }: Notice was served upon the petitioner in the format prescribed in Schedule II read with Section 18-A of the Act and on receipt thereof, he applied for leave to contest. The same has, however, been declined by the Rent Controller and consequential eviction order has been passed. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent – specified landlord is not the exclusive owner of the premises and is only a co-owner along with his brother. In other words, the petitioner's contention is that a `specified landlord' can not seek eviction of his tenant through summary procedure contemplated by Section 18-A of the Act unless the rented premises is exclusively owned by him. The plea taken by the petitioner – tenant, however, is untenable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v Monish Saini, [2005] 12 SCC,778 has ruled that “even if the landlord was not the sole owner of the property in dispute, there is no bar for him to take up the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act”. Following Baldev Singh Bajwa's case [supra], this Court in a catena of decisions, including Maya Kishan v Karam Singh, CR No. 3717 of 2009 decided on 8 th July, 2009 has held that a `specified landlord' who is co-owner can seek eviction of the tenant under Section 13-B of the Act. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 08, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE