CIVIL REVISION NO.2737 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 13, 2008 B.S.Sood .....Petitioner VERSUS Ved Parkash ....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. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos.2737 of 2008 (B.S.Sood Vs. Ved Parkash), 2738 of 2008 (Satnarain Vs. Ved Parkash, 2741 of 2008 (Gulzar Singh Vs. Gurdev Kaur) and 2742 of 2008 (Mohan Singh Vs. Ved Parkash). Ved Parkash is common respondent in Civil Revision Nos.2737, 2738 and 2742. He filed an application under Section 13- B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short, “the Act”) for ejectment of three different petitioners from the shops in dispute. The petitioners, when put to notice, filed application under Section 18 of the Act, seeking leave to contest the petition. The CIVIL REVISION NO.2737 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: respondent seeks eviction of the petitioners on the ground that he would need the demised premises for his own use as he being N.R.I. wants to settle in India and, thus, needs the premises for his own use and occupation. Respondent, Ved Parkash, states that he is settled in United States of America and now wants to return to India. The petitioners would dispute the personal need as projected by the respondent. They would also dispute the ownership of the demised premises by the respondent. According to the petitioners, the respondent does not need the shops for his occupation as he is permanently settled in U.S.A with no plan to return to India and aim is only to sell these six shops. In response to this application, the respondent would say that he is owner of the demised premises. Respondent also took the objection that the application seeking leave to defend was time barred. He submitted that he would need these shops for his personal use and for requirement of his son, Ashok Kumar. In Civil Revision No.2741 of 2008, Gurdev Kaur, respondent is the NRI, who has filed this petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Petitioner, Gulzar Singh, filed an application under Section 18-A, seeking permission to contest the ejectment petition. The objections raised by the petitioner in this case are that the respondent has no intention to shift to India and he is not NRI. It is further pleaded that the respondent has no concern with the property and that the premises are not required for his personal use and occupation. The assessment of evidence as otherwise is on the common grounds in all the revision petitions. The Rent Controller has referred to the provisions of CIVIL REVISION NO.2737 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: Section 13-B of the Act and then went on to take into consideration the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties. The Rent Controller referred to the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Munish Saini, 2005 (2) RCR 470 and noticed the requirement, which would entitle the petitioners to leave to defend the application. The Rent Controller made reference to the fact that the respondent was having an Indian passport and is an American citizen. As per the Rent Controller onus was on the petitioners to show that the respondent was not a N.R.I, which they failed to show. The Rent Controller also made reference to the sale deed to find that the property in dispute has been purchased by the respondent. The Rent Controller has rightly relied upon the ratio of law laid down in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra) to say that the respondent was proved to be a N.R.I. He also rightly noticed that there are sufficient safeguards provided in the Act which would take care of the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the aim of the respondent is to sell the shops. Accordingly, the petitioners were denied the leave to defend the application filed by the respondent under Section 13-B of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a single fold submission before this Court in support of the revisions to challenge the impugned order. He would contend that separate rent petitions have been filed against the different tenants, though in the same building, and this aspect would give rise to an issue regarding the right of a landlord to get different units of the building vacated from different tenants by filing different applications, which would be CIVIL REVISION NO.2737 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: contrary to the rights available under Section 13-B of the Act, which provides that this can only be used once in the life time of a landlord. The counsel then submitted that this subject matter is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. No.8423 of 2006 (Harbhajan Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh). He would also submit that some other tenants were granted leave to defend on the basis of same objection raised on behalf of the tenants. The counsel for the petitioners was given time and opportunity to produce the order passed in S.L.P. referred to above. He was neither in possession of the order nor could he otherwise say that he was personally aware of the exact orders passed in the said S.L.P. Rather, he disclosed during his argument that this has been so apprised to him by another counsel. He was then asked to produce the order during the course of a day but he expressed his inability and prayed for adjournment on this ground. This prayer was declined. The ground on which the counsel has challenged the impugned order is subject matter of adjudication before this Court and it has been viewed that mere fact that each of the tenant is inducted in a separate defined area or in part of the premises as a tenant will not dis-entitle the landlord to seek eviction of the tenants from the entire building. It is further held that to seek eviction, each part let out would be building so as to maintain an eviction petition under the Act. To determine the requirement of landlord for use of the building for his bonafide personal requirement, it would be integrated building of which the tenant was inducted in part. In this regard, reference can be made to Harbhajan Singh Vs. Gurdial CIVIL REVISION NO.2737 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: Singh, 2006 (2) PLR 23 and Mukesh Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumari and others, 2007 (1) PLR 801. In view of the law laid down by this Court, I would not feel the necessity of going further to adjudicate the submissions made, specially so when the counsel could not refer to the S.L.P and issue involved therein. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and, thus, would dismiss all the four revision petitions. May 13 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE