C.R.No.2684 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.2684 of 2011 Date of decision:8.8.2011 Mohan Singh Bhullar ...Petitioner vs UCO Bank and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.H.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Alok Jagga, Advocate, for the respondent. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is landlord's petition challenging the impugned order whereby application of the respondent-tenant for leave to defend has been allowed holding that the tenant has raised triable issues. A perusal of the impugned order would show that while granting leave to defend the Rent Controller held that the petitioner landlord was a joint owner and could not have filed an application for possession of the property under Section 13-B of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act , in his individual capacity and therefore, the respondent-tenant has raised a triable issue and granted him leave to contest. At the time of motion hearing, counsel for the petitioner had submitted before this Court that the ground on which the respondent-tenant has been granted permission to contest ejectment application is squarely covered against him vide judgment of this Court dated 26.4.2011 passed in Civil Revision No.4025 of 2006 titled as Smt.Bachan Kaur and others v. C.R.No.2684 of 2011 2 Kabal Singh and another decided on 26.4.2011, wherein it is observed as under :- “ A co-owner is owner of each part of the property in husband like manner with other co-owners. He is entitled to seek ejectment of tenant in premises for benefit and for the benefit of all other co-owners. Such right is subject to one exception that none of the remaining co-owner objects to such action of the petitioning co-owner. If one of the owners happens to be a NRI, he does not relinquish his character and status as that of co-owner. Thus an order of ejectment obtained by a NRI-co-owner will bind other co-owners but willnot entitle other NRI and/ or an co-owner to seek ejectment of tenant from another building either owned solely by such co- owner or jointly with other persons as co-owner in exercise of right of eviction granted to an NRI by Section 13-B of the Punjab Act. Thus in respect of first question of law, it is held that a co-owner, who is Non-Resident Indian, even when other co-owners are not Non-Resident Indians, can maintain a petition for ejectment for the benefit of all the co-owners” Mr.Alok Jagga learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent could not dispute the proposition as settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment to the extent that application for ejectment filed by the petitioner-landlord who was admittedly a co- owner of the property was maintainable. However, Shri Jagga has referred to the objections taken by him in the application for leave to contest and has submitted that many other points were raised which do not find mentioned in the impugned order and have not been considered. Shri Jagga has referred to para 4 (E) of the application for leave to contest, which reads thus:- “That the petition is filed as per record by one Ramesh Kumar C.R.No.2684 of 2011 3 s/o Bihari Lal r/o Shahkot alleging himself to be the special attorney of the alleged petitioner Mohan Singh as special power of attorney dated 4th July, 2009, executed on Stamp papers of the value of Rs.100 only. The said power of attorney is neither attested/Notarised as per statutory provisions of the notary act and the stamp paper is also not sufficient as required under the Indian Stamp Act. So the present eviction petition is without any authority from the landowners. As such the present petitioner fails on this score as well”. By referring to the aforesaid para, Shri Jagga has submitted before this Court that the petition filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord through the said attorney was not competent as the said attorney is not competent to depose on behalf of the respondent landlord with regard to the facts which were personal to his knowledge. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed as the Rent Controller has failed to deal with the points as raised in the application. Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller to decide this application for leave to contest filed by the respondent afresh. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on the date fixed. The Rent Controller is directed to decide the application within one month thereafter. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 8, 2011 rk C.R.No.2684 of 2011 4