CIVIL REVISION NO. 3717 OF 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3717 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 08th July, 2009. Maya Kishan Petitioner through Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate Versus Karam Singh Respondents through None. 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 tenant against the order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Garshankar whereby in an eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the petitioner's application for leave to contest has been dismissed. [2]. The facts may be noticed briefly. [3]. The respondent – landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act on the ground that he is a Non-Resident- Indian and is a “specified landlord” within the meaning of Section 13- B and owns the subject premises from the last more than five years, therefore, is entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner – tenant as he requires the demised shop to start his own business. [4]. Section 13-B of the Act provides that where an owner of CIVIL REVISION NO. 3717 OF 2009. ::-2-:: the premises is a Non-Resident-Indian and if he requires the same for his use or for the use of any of his dependent and if he is owner of such premises for a period of more than five years, he may seek eviction of the tenant summarily as per the procedure laid down in Section 18-A of the Act. The only limited right given to a tenant is that to apply under Section 18-A[4] of the Act and seek leave to contest the eviction petition. [5]. The Rent Controller is required to satisfy himself that – [i] the petitioner is a Non-Resident-Indian; [ii] he is the owner/landlord of the demised premises; [iii] the premises is commercial in nature; and [iv] the same is required by the NRI-landlord for his bona-fide use. If the eviction petition satisfies these ingredients and the tenant is unable to make out a triable case, the Rent Controller is obligated to pass an ejectment order summarily as contemplated by Section 18A of the Act. [6]. In the case in hand, the respondent asserted himself to be the co-owner in the suit property along with his brothers Jarnail Singh and Kulwant Singh and placed on record copies of Jamabandi in support of his co-ownership. [7]. The subject premises is a shop, i.e., admittedly a commercial property. [8]. The respondent – landlord also placed on record a copy of his Passport and Permanent Resident Card issued by the Competent Authority in United States of America to prove his NRI status. He has also taken a categoric stand that he requires the subject premises as he wants to start his business in India. CIVIL REVISION NO. 3717 OF 2009. ::-3-:: [9]. The petitioner – tenant made an abortive attempt to dis- lodge his landlord's claim by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed to have been inducted as a tenant by Jarnail Singh – brother of the respondent/landlord. The un-rebutted revenue record clearly depicts that the land where the subject shop has been constructed is comprising Khasra Nos.34/19/2/2, 21/2/3, 21/2/2 and is situated within the Municipal limits of Mahilpur, Tehsil Garshankar and as per the said record, the same is owned by the landlord – Karam Singh along with his brothers – Jarnail Singh and Kulwant Singh. The Rent Controller has accordingly declined the petitioner's application seeking leave to contest. [10]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [11]. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the NRI – landlord should be the 'exclusive owner' of the rented premises and where he claims himself to be a joint owner along with his brothers, it raises a triable issue and leave to contest ought to have been granted by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Kundan Singh v Lal Singh, 2005[1] Civil Court Cases, 775. [12]. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any merit in the above noticed contention. Suffice it to mention that the controversy has been set at rest by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v Monish Saini, [2005] 12 SCC,778 wherein it has been specifically held 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 CIVIL REVISION NO. 3717 OF 2009. ::-4-:: Act”. Kundan Singh's case [supra] was decided much before the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision came in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case [supra] and there were several factors in that case taken together by the learned Single Judge to hold that the tenant had raised triable issues. In a later decision, this Court in Pritam Singh v Dilbagh Rai, 2007[2] RCR, 360, has referred to various decisions directly on the issue including Baldev Singh Bajwa's case [supra] and has held as follows:- “8. As regards the other objection that since the building has not been let out by Charanjit Rai, therefore, he can not seek the possession of the same, can also not be maintained. The Apex Court in case of Baldev Singh Bajwa v Manish Saini, 2005[4] RCR[Civil], 492, after referring provisions of sub-sections 13-B[1][2] and [3] along with Section 19 of the Act and procedure contained in Sub-Sections 18-A[4][5][6] and [8] in context to the objective of the legislation, it was laid down that the scope of enquiry of considering the application under Section 13-B of the Act, the Rent Controller is to be satisfied that [i] the landlord is NRI, [ii] he has returned to India; [iii] his requirement of the accommodation is genuine; and [iv] he is the owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment, before the Controller. In the case in hand, all the ingredients as set out in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case [supra] stand completed. At the same time, it is also well- settled by now that letting out by the co-owner would be letting out on behalf of other co-owners or even the letting out by the predecessor of the landlord will be treated as letting out by the owner/present landlord of the property. Had it been the requirement that the owner should have CIVIL REVISION NO. 3717 OF 2009. ::-5-:: let out the property, then the Supreme Court would have also added it in its guidelines, but that was not so done in their wisdom, because even if one becomes owner of the rented premises by way of purchase, gift, will, partition or inheritance, then it would have been difficult to get it vacated. Thus, the plea that the respondent Charanjit Rai being the owner had not let out the property can not be taken as a ground for allowing leave to defend the petition”. [13]. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. July 08, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE