Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.11.2010 Ram Lal …Petitioner Versus Ram Dass …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hittan Nehra, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Ram Dass, a Non Resident Indian, instituted two eviction petitions against the petitioner and his son Tavinder Kumar for causing their eviction from two shops, which were rented out to them. It was pleaded by the landlord that he is residing in United Kingdom for the last about 45 years. It was further pleaded that he intended to start his business in India as in old age neither the climate of United Kingdom is conducive nor he intended to live there in the last days of his life. He further averred that the demised premises has fallen to his share after the family settlement arrived at with his brother Kartar Singh. The Rent Controller, Phillaur, after this Court had remanded the matter, in earlier revision petition viz. Civil Revision No. 5668 of 2008, accepted the Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 2 eviction petition, vide impugned order dated 26.5.2010 and ordered ejectment of the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner/tenant has assailed the findings returned by the Rent Controller, on the following grounds:- A) That two separate shops, vide separate tenancies, were rented out to the petitioner and his son. Petition, first in time, was filed against Tavinder Kumar, son of the petitioner. Hence, the respondent/landlord could exercise his rights under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”) only once and the present eviction petition was not maintainable. It is to be noticed that the eviction petition against Tavinder Kumar was filed on 5.12.2002 and the present petition was filed two days thereafter on 7.12.2002. In both the eviction petitions, description of the shops and the fact that the same have been rented out to the petitioner and son Tavinder Kumar was mentioned. This argument, raised by Mr. Punchhi is liable to be rejected as now it has been held in various judgments of this Court, affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that various tenancies in one building constitutes one composite building and Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 3 various units, rented out at the same time, can be made subject matter of the ejectment. It has been held by this Court in Lakhwinder Kumar v. Pavittar Kaur (dead) though LRs (Civil Revision No. 1385 of 2004 (O&M) decided on 7.9.2009) and the other connected revision petitions, that even if there are more than one tenant in a single building, the Non Resident Indian is entitled to evict all of them. The Special Leave Petition, filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed. In Bhandari General Store and Another v. Makhan Singh Grewal 2006(1) Rent Control Reporter 306, wherein a Non Resident Indian-landlord had instituted the eviction petition for seeking ejectment of 13 tenants in 13 shops, pertaining to one building, it was held that all the 13 shops constitute one building and the Non Resident Indian can get all the tenants evicted. Para No.8 of the judgment rendered in Bhandari General Store's case (supra) reads as under:- “...8. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court squarely covers the case of the respondent- landlord. In this case also, one building was let out in different parts and in that situation, he is entitled to recover the Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 4 immediate possession of all the parts by filing different petitions. The question whether the different parts let out to different tenants are part of one building or separate buildings is a question of fact which is to be determined on the fact and circumstances of each cases. Before getting ejectment of different tenants from different parts, it has to be established that all the parts let out to different tenants are part of one building. In the instant case, the Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence available on record has recorded a finding of fact that all the 13 shops are part and parcel of the building. In this regard, the Rent Controller has relied upon various photographs, site plan and the report of the Architect, which clearly established that all the shops constitute one building and the suit building as a single unit was constructed at one time. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact. Thus, in my opinion, the ejectment orders passed against the petitioners regarding two different shops which form part of one Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 5 building, cannot be said to be illegal on the ground that under Section 13B of the Act, the landlord has already got vacated one shop, which was also part of the said building”. The view taken in Bhandari General Store's case (supra) has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the Special Leave Petition, filed against the said judgment, was dismissed. Therefore, the respondent/landlord could maintain two petitions against two tenants i.e. petitioner and his son Tavinder Kumar as both the shops form part of one building. B) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another argument that after the eviction petitions were instituted on 5.12.2002 and 7.12.2002, Kesho Lal, attorney, had executed an agreement Ex.R1, wherein there is a recital that “the rent has been increased and the petitioner would be continued to be his tenant for his life time”. This agreement has been seriously commented upon by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller qua the agreement Ex.R1, observed as under:- “...15. In the present case, the petitioner himself stepped into the witness box and deposed that he is NRI. He being Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 6 Indian origin and presently residing in UK and the copy of his passport is Ex.A2 and he also deposed with regard to the premises elucidated by way of the site plan Ex.A1 having been given on rent to respondent Ram Lal and the same having fallen to his share by way of family partition, the copy of the site plan so appended as Ex.A3 and the jamabandi showing the ownership of petitioner along with his brother Kartar Singh is Ex.A4. No doubt the respondent has proved Ex.R1 but the recital of the agreement that the said shop would remain on rent with the respondent during their whole lifetime are hard to digest. No doubt, the recitals in the agreement can be relied upon as a piece of evidence for determining whether the requirement of petitioner is bonafide or not for the purpose of his personal use and occupation but this agreement Ex.R1 cannot be sole ground for non eviction of the respondent. No absolute right has been given to the respondent that the petitioner cannot get vacate the shop under the provisions of NRI Act or any Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 7 other act during the whole lifetime. So the agreement Ex.R1 contrary to the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and it is hard to digest that a blanket ban has been imposed through Ex.R1 on the petitioner to file any petition under the Act for eviction of the respondent. This is not the spirit of law at all...” The landlord had executed the power of attorney in favour of Kesho Lal on 4.12.2002. On 5.12.2002 and 7.12.2002, two eviction petitions were filed. It is difficult to comprehend that on 23.12.2002, an agreement Ex.R1 was executed especially when immediately after its execution, the complaint was lodged that the document is forged and fabricated one. Even after the execution of the alleged agreement Ex.R1, the landlord persisted with the eviction petitions. The landlord has also relied upon the testimony of RW.1 Ashwani Kumar, Deed Writer, who stated that when the alleged agreement was executed, no talks of compromise were made at his seat. Thus, the agreement is to be excluded from consideration. C) Lastly, Mr. Punchi has submitted that after filing of the eviction petitions, the landlord is still residing in Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 8 the United Kingdom and has not come back to India to give effect to his need. It is well known that even though summary procedure has been devised to facilitate early eviction of the building belonging to the Non Resident India, still a lot of time is consumed in culmination of the proceedings. In the present case, the eviction petition was instituted in the year 2002. The landlord is not expected to come and stay in India for about eight years, to await the result of the eviction petition, as it is not known as to when the actual physical peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises is to be handed over. The landlord is not required to come and wait indefinitely. Having rejected all the arguments raised, I have also perused the impugned order, passed by the Rent Controller, Phillaur. The landlord indeed fulfilled all the requirements which are necessary for causing the eviction of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. It is not disputed that the landlord is a Non Resident Indian having a British passport. He is owner of the property for more than five years and has sought eviction of the tenants from two shops on the ground of personal necessity. Necessary ingredients have been proved. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition by this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2010 9 Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 11, 2010 “DK”