Civil Revision No.2729 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2729 of 2008 Gurcharan Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Kewal Krishan & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Date of decision: November 18, 2010. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri KDS Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Kewal Krishan, respondent No.1 is a Non-Resident Indian. He filed five separate eviction petitions against six tenants. It is stated that the respondent-Non Resident Indian had let out six shops. It is admitted that out of the five respondents, four respondents, namely, Baldev Kaur, Ranbir Singh alias Rana, Harvir alias Lucky and Nanu have vacated the shops, as in the revision petitions preferred by them in this Court, the claim of the respondent that he requires the shops for his personal use and occupation under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has been upheld qua those four shops. Counsel for the respondent has stated that they have vacated the shops. Since plea of the landlord qua other four shops has been upheld as at the same time 5 eviction petitions Civil Revision No.2729 of 2008 -: 2 :- were filed, the fact of the controversy raised is in a narrow compass. It was pleaded by the respondent-landlord that the father of the landlord had purchased the building vide sale deed 31.1.1953 and vide judgment dated 4.11.1985 passed in civil suit, mother of the landlord, namely, Smt. Mayawanti and sister Sudesh Kumari became owners of the building. Smt. Mayawanti died on 18.1.1995. She had executed a registered Will dated 23.12.1985 in favour Kewal Krishan – landlord and her another son Surinder Pal. It was averred in the eviction petition that the landlord is the owner of the building and being NRI, seeks eviction of the tenants from these shops on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landord was owner of the property for the previous five years and he has proved his personal necessity. Shri Hitesh Kaplish, Counsel for the petitioners, has stated that the landlord is not a specified NRI and he has also failed to indicate as to for what purpose he requires the premises and whether four shops which he has got vacated, are sufficient for the proposed business or not. Counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the respondent-landlord has not specified for what business he requires these shops and since he is already in possession of four shops, he can run his business therefrom. According to him, in fact, the respondent-landlord does not want to run a business from the demised shops as he has not made any effort to start his business during the last 6 years of his stay in India. Shri Sodhi, Counsel for the respondent- landlord, is also not in a position to acquaint this Court as to what business the landlord intends to start and whether four shops already in possession will be insufficient or business is to be carried from five shops. Civil Revision No.2729 of 2008 -: 3 :- This Court is of the view that this is a triable issue whether all five shops are necessary for business and whether four shops already in possession of the respondent-landlord are sufficient for the proposed business. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be granted leave to defend. Hence, the order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara is set aside. The petition is allowed. The Rent Controller is directed to decide the eviction petition within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after affording three effective opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] November 18, 2010. Judge kadyan