Civil Revision No.6706 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6706 of 2010 Date of decision: October 12, 2010. Satwant Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Mukand Lal Bawa ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Petitioner is a tenant in one room measuring 12'x6'-11” situated on the second floor of the demised property on rent @ Rs.30/- per month. Respondent-landlord is also in possession of one room of similar size on the first floor. Respondent-landlord had become owner of the property in the year 1992 on the basis of gift deed. Before 1992, respondent-landlord was owning 1/8th share in the property and vide gift deed dated 28.2.1992, he also became owner of the remaining 7/8 shares. The Rent Controller has given a categoric finding that the gift deed Ex.A4 dated 28.2.1992 has been proved by Shri Ramesh Kumar Sodhi, Deed Writer, AW3 who deposed that Shri Shiv Kumar Sodhi Deed Writer was his uncle and he has drawn the gift deed. Certified copy of the gift deed was also placed on record as Ex.A.4/1. Furthermore, landlord proved that he is a Non-Resident Indian by placing Civil Revision No.6706 of 2010 -: 2 :- on record his passport Ex.A1, visa Ex.A2, identity card Ex.A3 issued by the NRI Sabha. In the present case, leave to defend was granted by the Rent Controller and the following issues were drawn:- “1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent @ Rs.30/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.11.1995 till date? OPA 2. Whether the applicant being NRI requires the premises in dispute bonafide as prayed for thereof? OPA 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to ejectment of the respondent from the premises in dispute? OPA 4. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 5. Relief.” Since, arrears of rent were paid, the issue regarding non-payment of rent was not pressed. However, the Rent Controller came to conclusion that the landlord being an NRI, requires the premises for his own use and occupation. Shri Anupam Bhardwaj, Counsel appearing for petitioner- tenant, has raised following two-fold arguments. Firstly, it is submitted that the wife of the respondent-landlord had shifted to Kuwait; out of two sons, his one son is living with him in Kuwait and the second son is studying in Australia and may become a permanent resident of Australia. This argument, however, cannot be accepted to deny the relief to the landlord as the petition was filed in the year 2005. For 5 years, the family of the respondent-landlord, an NRI, could not hang in India simply because there was delay in conclusion of the eviction proceedings. It has also come in Civil Revision No.6706 of 2010 -: 3 :- evidence that respondent-landlord is residing in Kuwait for the last 34 years and is well entitled to spend his remaining life in his native house. Secondly, it is stated that the respondent-landlord is earning 500 Dinars as salary and his son is earning 150 Dinars and therefore, they are habitual of leading a lavish life style, thus, the portion in occupation of the petitioner-tenant will not be sufficient for family needs of the landlord. It has come in evidence that the respondent-landlord wants to re-construct the premises for his own use and occupation, therefore, no infirmity can be found in the well reasoned order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present petition is dismissed in limine. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] October 12, 2010. Judge kadyan