Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4734 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 25th November, 2009. Rajesh Gupta & Ors. Petitioner through Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate Versus Balwinder Kaur Respondent through Mr. Y.P.Khullar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the petitioner – tenants against the order dated 16.07.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby in an eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, their application for leave to contest, has been dismissed. [2]. The respondent – landlady, who at the time of filing of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, was 83 years old, sought the petitioners' eviction from the demised premises comprising property bearing No. B-XV-565, Overlock Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, inter- alia, on the ground that she is a Non-Resident-Indian within the meaning of Section 2[dd] of the Act and requires the demised premises for her own use and occupation as she wants to settle in India in the evening of her life. [3]. Upon notice, the petitioners applied for leave to contest but the same has been declined vide the impugned order, giving rise to this revision petition. Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2008. ::-2-:: [4]. Counsel for the petitioners has raised two fold contentions. Firstly, it is urged that the respondent – landlady has failed to prove her ownership qua the demised premises for a period of five years before filing the eviction petition. Secondly, she does not require the demised premises and has failed to make out a case of bona-fide personal necessity. [5]. Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the other material on record, I do not find any merit in both the contentions. In Para 3[c] of their application for leave to contest, the petitioners themselves have averred as follows:- “[c] That the respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The petitioner has wrongly claimed rent @ Rs.1000/- per month. The tenancy was not created by the petitioner. The property was taken on rent by the respondent from Kishan Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner. After the death of Kishan Singh, his son Tarlochan Singh husband of the petitioner started realizing the rent from the respondent. Tarlochan Singh has died and he left behind 3 sons and a daughter besides the petitioner. All the sons of Tarlochan Singh are married and settled outside from Ludhiana and the daughter of Tarlochan Singh is also married outside Ludhiana. The petitioner is not the sole owner but is one of the heir of Tarlochan Singh. She is only a co-owner and as such has no locus standi to claim the eviction from the property in the absence of other heirs of Tarlochan Singh”. [Emphasis applied]. [6]. It is not in dispute that Tarlochan Singh – the previous owner had died in the year 1976. The respondent is admittedly the widow of Tarlochan Singh and, according to the petitioners Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2008. ::-3-:: themselves, is one of the co-owners. In that capacity alone, the respondent is entitled to maintain an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In Baldev Singh Bajwa v Monish Saini, [2005] 12 SCC,778 it has been specifically ruled that “even if the landlord was not the sole owner of the property in dispute, there is no bar for him to take up the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act”. [7]. As regards the second contention, in my considered view the old age of the respondent strengthens her plea that in the late evening of her life, she wants to return and spend her time with nears and dears in India. The statutory presumption of bona-fide and genuineness of the need of a NRI – landlord has been expressly approved in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case [supra], unless rebutted by the tenant by leading some cogent and strong evidence. The petitioners have failed to produce any material or disclose the particulars of any other property which the respondent can utilize for her residential purpose in the urban area concerned nor it is their case that the respondent has got vacated any such other property. [8] Dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. [9]. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners need to make some alternative arrangement, it is directed that they may retain the possession of the demised premises till 31st March, 2010, subject to payment of the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.100/- per month w.e.f. 1.7.1992 onwards, within one month, by way of Demand Draft in favour of the respondent - landlady. The petitioners shall also keep on paying the future rent by the 10th day of each calendar month. November 25, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE