Civil Revision No.4096 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4096 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.11.2011 Neelam Ahluwalia Nakra and others ....Petitioners Versus State Bank of India ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. V.Ramswaroop, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sajal Kosar, Advocate for the respondent. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is landlords' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 26.7.2011 of the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali) whereby in a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), respondent- tenant has been granted leave to contest. The necessary facts emerging from the impugned order and other documents placed on the record of this revision petition are that the petitioners-landlords filed a petition under Section 13-B of 'the Act' against the respondent-Bank. Upon service respondent- Bank applied for leave to defend. However, vide order dated 5.2.2011, the said application for leave to defend was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-Bank filed Civil Civil Revision No.4096 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Revision No.2867 of 2011 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2011. The said order reads thus:- “CM Nos.11788 & 11789-CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CR No.2867 of 2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia, contends that while deciding application filed under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short,'the Act'), the Rent Controller had noticed that the landlady has to prove that she requires the demised premises for bonafide personal necessity and also noticed the contention of the tenant but had not decided the same. Learned counsel also refers to Annexures P-1 and P-3 which are letters written by the landlady to the bank where she wanted to renew the lease of the bank for a period of 12 years with enhancement of rent. It is alleged that if the intention of the landlady was to enhance the rent and to continue the lease for 12 years,there was no bonafide necessity for which application could have been filed under Section 18-A of the Act. Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr.V.Ramswaroop Advocate, who is on caveat,appears and submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Rent Controller to record a finding on the issue of bonafide necessity as well. He has submitted that the Rent Controller may be directed to decide the application after remand within a specified period as it pertains to a filing of an application under Section 13-B of the Act. In view of his statement, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, Mohali, to decide the question of bonafide Civil Revision No.4096 of 2011 (O&M) 3 necessity as well which has been left to be decided in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the date already fixed before the Court below is 19.5.2011. The Rent Controller shall decide the question of bonafide necessity as well within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties” After the remand, the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 14th June, 2011 has allowed the application for grant of leave to contest the case of the respondent-Bank, observing that in view of the letters Annexures P1 to P3 written by the petitioners with regard to the enhancement of rent to the respondent-tenant just prior to the expiry of the lease deed triable issues are raised with regard to the bona fide need of the petitioner as from the said material placed on record an inference is drawn that intention of the landlord was to enhance the rent and not the personal necessity. The Rent Controller had also observed that the question whether a co-sharer who is not an NRI alongwith another NRI co-sharer can maintain the petition under Section 13-B of 'the Act'. The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court. At the outset, it may be relevant to mention that in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision No.4025 of 2006 titled as Smt. Bachan Kaur and others vs. Kabal Singh and another decided on 26.4.2011. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-tenant has fairly conceded that observation of the Rent Controller regarding filing of petition by a co-owner cannot be sustained. However, it has been vehemently argued that in view of the evidence/material on record Civil Revision No.4096 of 2011 (O&M) 4 showing that just before the expiry of the lease period, the petitioners had asked for enhancement of rent presumption of bona fide need of the petitioners-landlords stood rebutted and thus a triable issue whether the personal need of the NRI-Landlord is bona fide or not arises in the ejectment petition and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. At this stage, it may also be relevant to mention that in the order dated 5.5.2011 passed in Civil Revision No.2867 of 2011 counsel for the petitioner has in fact conceded that the matter be remanded back to the Rent Controller to record the finding on the issue of bona fide necessity as well and the matter was remanded accordingly. In view of the aforesaid order also now it does not lie in the mouth of petitioner to raise the said issue. Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the ejectment petition between the parties pending before him within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. Let the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 28.11.2011. November 17, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE