Civil Revision No. 1654 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 1654 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.4.2010 Jasbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Singh ...Respondent 2. Civil Revision No. 1655 of 2008 Shashi Pal Chopra ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Singh ...Respondent 3. Civil Revision No. 1656 of 2008 Uagar Sain Kapoor @ Vicky ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. It is common ground that variation of the contesting Civil Revision No. 1654 of 2008 -2- **** parties on point of identity notwithstanding, these petitions have to meet the same fate in view of the fact that there is commonness of controversy involved therein. This consensual arrangement fortifies the grant of a common order in these three petitions. The respondent-landlord invoked the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by raising a plea that he is a specified landlord within the ambit of provision aforementioned and that he requires the tenanted premises, which is under the occupation of petitioner-tenant, for personal bonafide necessity. The petitioner-tenant filed a plea under Section 18-A of the Act to obtain the leave of the Rent Controller to defend proceedings aforementioned. The learned Rent Controller declined the plea for leave to defend. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, argues that the plea for leave to defend ought to have been allowed against the respondent-landlord as he has a number of properties elsewhere as well throughout India and, thus, he has no personal bonafide necessity to obtain the vacation of the premises aforementioned. The plea was validly declined by the learned Rent Controller. The beneficial provisions contained in Section 13-B of the Act grant one time benefit to a specified landlord in respect of one property. The statutory law nowhere indicates that such a plea has Civil Revision No. 1654 of 2008 -3- **** to be negatived in case an NRI landlord owns other property too. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to urge anything to the contrary. It is, then, argued that respondent-landlord has not been able to prove that he is owner of the tenanted premises. The plea had been validly declined by the learned Rent Controller in view of the fact that the conveyance deed dated 26.11.1984 is the source of title of the respondent-landlord and there is nothing on record to falsify it. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petitions are held to be denuded of merits and are ordered to be dismissed. The petitioners shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. April 23, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge