IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.64 of 2009 Date of decision:20.05.2009 Davinder Kumar and another ...Petitioners versus Swaran Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.V.G.Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sukhjit Singh Chandi, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against an order refusing leave to defend to a tenant in a petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that he has substantial grounds of defence which if taken would dis-entitle the landlord to obtain eviction. He would state that apart from the front portion where the tenant is in occupation, whole of the remaining portion is in possession of the landlord's brother who claims to be a co-owner and the property at the first floor and the second floor were in the possession of the landlord but remaining unoccupied. Yet another contention urged by the tenant was that the landlord had admittedly taken action for eviction in respect of the portions of the first floor and the second floor and the question Civil Revision No.64 of 2009 - 2 - whether the landlord could obtain eviction of more than one tenant in possession under Section 13-B is a matter that is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is therefore certainly a tenable defence to disclose and the refusal to grant such a leave by the Rent Controller is erroneous. 2. The counsel for the respondent points out that apart from the property which is demised in favour of the tenant, the remaining portions are residential portions of the building and the ejectment is sought on the ground of the requirement of the landlord for putting it to non-residential use. To meet the contention that the landlord cannot resort to action against more than one tenant while invoking Section 13- B, the learned counsel points out and in my view correctly so, that the action for eviction had not been made under Section 13-B itself in respect of other tenants and that eviction has been obtained of the residential portions by resort to Section 13 at the instance of another brother in his capacity as a co-owner. 3. Yet another argument which is made on behalf of the tenant by the learned counsel is that the landlord has been living away at London for several number of years and the so-called need for such a landlord is merely ruse to secure eviction. 4. None of the grounds that is urged on behalf of the tenant has the least merit to grant leave so long as the landlord is not shown to have resorted to action under Section 13-B against any other tenant in respect of other portions. There is no bar for invoking the provisions of this Court under Section 13-B, if it is held to be conceded Civil Revision No.64 of 2009 - 3 - that the only portion of the property in the hands of the tenant is a non- residential portion and the fact that remaining portions have been occupied by the landlord's brother for his residential purpose will not cause any ground for suspecting the bona fides. The doubt expressed by the tenant that the landlord had been living away in London and is not likely to return to India, is again not a matter which could be urged at the time of grant of leave. The legislature itself takes care of such an eventuality in that, the landlord who invokes this provision but does not occupy the property subsequent to an order of eviction is subjected to legislative rigour of losing the property again to the tenant on an application taken at the instance of the tenant, if he proves that the landlord did not occupy the premises. 5. The rejection of leave to defend, under the circumstances, is perfectly justified and there is no scope for interference in revision. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.05.2009 sanjeev