Civil Revision No.7902 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:25.07.2011 Dr.Rajinder Chugh ....petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vaibhav Sehgal,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the respondent *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner to the eviction application filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was declined. On the basis of the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, on December 03, 2010, the following order was passed: Present: Shri Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner Counsel for the petitioner contends that the demised property originally belonged to Smt.Kanta Devi and thereafter it devolved upon four brothers namely Joginderpal, Devinderpal, Sunil Dutt and the respondent herein Ashok Kumar. It is stated that later on, the respondent(Ashok Kumar) purchased the share of his three brothers and on Civil Revision No.7902 of 2010(O & M) 2 day of completion of five years, the eviction petition was filed. Counsel for the petitioner further states that he has specifically pleaded that Sunil Dutt was his landlord and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent Ashok Kumar and the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Nathi Devi vs.Radha Devi Gupta, 2005(1) RCR(Civil)631 to contend that only that person, who had let out the premises, can invoke the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Issue notice of motion for 20.1.2011. Dispossession of the petitioner shall remained stayed meanwhile. December 03, 2010 -sd- (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge The contention as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner stands repelled by a judgement dated 26.04.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.4025 of 2006 titled as Smt.Bachan Kaur & Ors.vs.Kabal Singh & anr., wherein the following two questions were raised: 1. Whether NRI/landlord who is a co-owner with the other landlords, who do not have the same status, as that of NRI can maintain a petition for eviction of the tenant from the property jointly owned by all of them? 2. Whether the premises from which eviction is sought under Section 13-B of the Act is to be let out by NRI/landlord or his duly authorized person acting on his behalf, or it can also include the letting by some other co- owner or predecessor-in-interest in their own right and not under the authority of NRI/landlord? After discussion, this Court held that a co-owner who is non- Civil Revision No.7902 of 2010(O & M) 3 resident Indian, even when other co-owners are not non-resident Indians, can maintain the petition for ejectment for the benefit of the co-owners and further where a co-owner who has not inducted a tenant can seek eviction of such tenant. In view of the aforesaid authoritative law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, I find no merit in this case. No other point was argued. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 25.07.2011 neenu