Civil Revison No.12 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.12 of 2010 Date of decision:04.02.2010. Ashwani Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus Baldeep Singh Sidhu ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The tenants (petitioners herein) are aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.11.2009 vide which the learned Rent Controller ordered former's ejectment from the tenanted premises, in allowance of a plea filed by the respondent herein under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that the respondent – landlord had been able to prove that he is an NRI who has owned the tenanted premises for the last 5 years and that he requires the same for personal bona fide requirement. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein, argued that the impugned finding deserves invalidation for the reason that the respondent – landlord owns a number of other buildings within the local limits of Municipal Committee, Ahmedgarh, and he has opted to refrain from making a mention thereof in the pleadings at the trial. It is also argued that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant Civil Revison No.12 of 2010 -2- between the parties inasmuch as the shop had been let out by Dr. Satwant Singh, father of the respondent – landlord to the petitioners herein. Insofar the former part of the grievance is concerned, it can be safely negatived in view of the law laid down by this Court in M/s Bhandari General Store & Anr. Vs. Makhan Singh Grewal, 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 633 (P&H). The relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereasunder: - “Non Resident Indian- If landlord is owning more than one buildings then it is his choice to get one building vacated out of two or more buildings.” In that view of things, the learned Rent Controller had validly negatived the plea aforementioned. Insofar as the latter item of grievance is concerned, the plea raised is oblivious of the law laid down by this Court in Kamal Raj Bansal Vs. Rajpaul Singh, 2008(2) Rent Control Reporter 376, wherein the following was held by this Court: - “East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, Section 13-B shop owned by NRI landlord-Tenant contended that landlord was not the owner which contention he could not prove-tenant paying rent to the sister of landlord and he is entitled to evict tenant under Section 13-B”. On point of fact, it may be noticed that there is material available on the file that the respondent – landlord had purchased the tenanted premises from Rahan Singh and Roor Singh, residents of Lehra, vide registered sale deed dated 20.03.1980. Though it cannot be denied that the rent note dated 11.02.1987 is in favour of Dr. Satwant Singh, it Civil Revison No.12 of 2010 -3- also cannot be wished away that the respondent – landlord is the owner of the property and there is, thus, obvious relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties herein. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the sale deed dated 20.03.1980 is benami. For want of any evidence supportive thereof, there is no justification to dub the impugned sale deed to be of benami character. The plea shall stand negatived accordingly. In view of the above noticed facts, it is apparent that the learned Rent Controller had adequate justification to decline the plea raised by the petitioner herein for leave to defend. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. February 04, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE