Civil Revision No. 395 of 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. [I] C.R. No. 395 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th December, 2009. Paramjit Singh Bara Petitioner through Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate Versus Joginder Singh & Anr. Respondents through Mr. K.D.S.Sodhi, Advocate. [II] C.R. No. 396 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th December, 2009. Satish Kumar Petitioner through Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate Versus Joginder Singh & Anr. Respondents through Mr. K.D.S.Sodhi, Advocate. [III] C.R. No. 2589 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th December, 2009. Kulwant Singh Petitioner through Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate Versus Joginder Singh & Anr. Respondents through Mr. K.D.S.Sodhi, Advocate. [IV] C.R. No. 6960 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th December, 2009. Rajinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate Versus Joginder Singh & Anr. Respondents through Mr. K.D.S.Sodhi, Advocate. 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? Civil Revision No. 395 of 2008. ::-2-:: SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 395, 396, 6960 of 2008 and 2589 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts have been extracted from Civil Revision No. 395 of 2008. [2]. The respondents, who are brothers, filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, inter-alia, on the ground that they are Non- Resident-Indians and owner-cum-landlords of the demised premises comprising a Shop situated at Gowshala Road, Near Jama Masjid, Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The respondents averred that their ownership was more than five years old and that respondent No. 1 has returned and made up his mind to settle in India and to start the business of Restaurant in the shop in dispute and, therefore, they require the same for their personal use and occupation. [3]. Upon notice, the petitioner – tenant applied for leave to contest vide affidavit dated 30.4.2005 [Annexure P-2] in which he denied every thing, including the status of respondent No. 2 as NRI, their ownership, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further claimed that the sale deed dated 2.12.1955 does not pertain to the property in dispute. [4]. The Rent Controller, Phagwara did not find any triable issue arising out of the objections raised by the petitioner – tenant and consequently while declining leave to contest, has passed the eviction order dated 10.10.2007, giving rise to this revision petition. [5]. At the out-set, it may be mentioned here that the Civil Revision No. 395 of 2008. ::-3-:: respondent – landlords had filed more than one eviction petitions against different tenants occupying different parts of the same building and those other tenants were also ordered to be evicted. All of them have now taken a common plea before this Court that the expression “building” means every individual unit and therefore, only one eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act was maintainable at the instance of the respondent – NRI landlords. Since the same issue was pending consideration in a batch of Civil Appeals also, these matters were adjourned to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. [6]. It is the conceded position that vide order dated 12.11.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No. 785 of 2008 [Ved Parkash Sharma v Ranbir Singh Sihota & Anr.], the Civil Appeals have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Otherwise also, the expression “building” used in Section 13-B of the Act makes it explicitly clear that a NRI – landlord has been given right to seek eviction from 'one building' whether occupied by one or more tenants. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner - tenant is, thus, legally misconceived and can not sustain. [7]. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent – landlords have not proved that the sale deed dated 2.12.1955 pertains to the demised premises and that the site plan [Annexure P-5] also does not tally with the sale deed, which by itself is a triable issue. [8]. In my considered view, there is no merit in the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is well settled that a tenant has no right to question the title of his landlord. The petitioner was Civil Revision No. 395 of 2008. ::-4-:: admittedly inducted as a tenant after 1955 and it is too late for him to dispute the title of his landlords. Secondly, the Rent Controller has rightly held that the respondents have placed on record a copy of the sale deed dated 2.12.1955 and reiterated in their reply to the application for leave to contest that the tenanted premises has been raised on the piece of land purchased vide the aforesaid sale deed. No contrary material has been brought on record by the petitioner – tenant along with his application for leave to contest, to show that the sale deed pertains to some other property/land. [9]. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that even if leave to contest is declined, it was imperative upon respondent No. 1 to have stepped into the witness box to support his claim. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in M.R.F.Limited & Anr. V S.Major Singh Purewal, 2009[3] RCR [Civil], 196. I am not impressed by the said contention as well. In Baldev Singh Bajwa v Monish Saini, 2005[12] SCC, 778, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the language employed in Section 13-B of the Act, has ruled that there arises a statutory presumption in favour of the genuineness and bona-fide need of the NRI – landlord, unless rebutted by producing some cogent and strong material on record. In my considered view, there is no legal necessity for a landlord to step into the witness box till the tenant raises a triable issue, i.e., rebuts the statutory presumption. It will be self-contradictory to compel a NRI – landlord to enter the witness box or lead evidence to prove his need on one hand and declining leave to contest to the tenant on the other hand. [10] In the case in hand, there is no material whatsoever Civil Revision No. 395 of 2008. ::-5-:: produced by the petitioner – tenant to rebut the presumption of genuineness in favour of the respondent – landlords and therefore, non-appearance of respondent No. 1 in the witness box, especially when leave to contest has already been declined to the tenant and no triable issue is raised, has no bearing at all. [11]. For the reasons afore-stated, no interference with the impugned order of eviction is called for. Dismissed. [12]. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner – tenant is running his business in the demised premises and he would require some time to make alternative arrangements, he is allowed to retain the possession thereof till 28.02.2010, however, subject to payment of arrears of rent, if any, as also future rent by the 10th day of every calendar month. December 15, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE