IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2521 of 2010 Date of decision: 28th July, 2010 Charan Dass … Petitioner Versus Satinder Kaur Bhoday and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed against the order of Rent Controller, Ludhiana dated 20th February, 2010, whereby the prayer made by the tenant that leave to defend be granted, was rejected. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has urged that litigation is pending among the co-owners, therefore, the respondents cannot seek eviction of the petitioner-tenant. The respondents are children of Mohan Singh. The property in question was rented out by Prem Singh, father of Mohan Singh. It was specifically averred that after the death of Prem Singh, Mohan Singh was collecting the rent and on his demise, Iqbal Kaur widow of Mohan Singh used to collect rent. It was further stated in the application for leave to defend that a few days back, Iqbal Kaur came to the property in dispute and told petitioner-tenant to increase the rent from Rs.300/- to Rs.2000/- per month. Therefore, this fact is not disputed that father and mother of the respondents remained landlord of the petitioner-tenant. However, Civil Revision No.2521 of 2010 reliance has been placed upon Annexure P-4, vide which co-owners of the property have filed a suit for possession by way of partition. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-4) reveals that Prem Singh grandfather of the respondents was joint-owner in possession with Bhagwant Singh and Charan Singh. The suit was filed by the legal representatives of Bhagwant Singh stating that they have inherited the property to the extent of 1/4th share. It was further stated in the suit that Prem Singh died leaving behind Mohan Singh deceased, who was impleaded through his legal representatives, viz. Iqbal Kaur and other children. Therefore, there is no dispute that the respondents are co- owners of the property. Since, the rent was received by Mohan Singh- father of the respondents and later-on by Iqbal Kaur-their mother, therefore, the respondents are also landlord qua the petitioner-tenant. Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the litigation pending between the co-owners, has stated that the property has not been partitioned and there is every possibility that in future, this property can fall to the other co-owners. Thus, the respondents-petitioners to the eviction petition, are not entitled to evict the petitioner-tenant. Since the Rent Controller has already held that the respondents, being co-owners and the landlord, are entitled to evict the tenant, I find no reason to disturb this finding. The second submission made before this Court is that since the rent was received by Mohan Singh father and later-on by Iqbal Kaur mother of the respondents, therefore, the respondents are not owner of the property from the last five years. This argument is to be rejected at the outset. If by inheritance, respondents have succeeded to the property, it cannot be said that they have to wait for five years to file an eviction petition. 2 Civil Revision No.2521 of 2010 Third argument raised is that the property is sought for setting-up of a computer business for respondent No.6. It is stated that respondent No.6 was born in Great Britain, therefore, he cannot be termed as a Non-Resident Indian. The Rent Controller, to controvert this assertion, has held as under: “7. Present petition has been filed by all the legal representatives of deceased Mohan Singh on the ground that they are Non Resident Indian and disputed property is required by petitioner No.6 Gursharan Singh Bhodey to start his business therein. As he has decided to return back to India to settle permanently in Ludhiana (Punjab). Petitioners have placed on record a copy of passport issued by Govt. of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to said Gursharan Singh Bhodey. In said passport he is stated to be a British Citizen. It is not disputed that Gursharan Singh is an Indian by birth and is a person of Indian origin. Accordingly, petitioner No.6 is an NRI within meaning of Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in view of case law laid down to this effect by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 243 ‘Surinder Kumar Shori v. Shakuntala Devi’ that: ‘Landlords an Indian by birth, but possessed Canadian passport. Would come within definition of NRI landlord’.” Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the Rent Controller had seen the passport of Gursharan Singh, copy whereof has not been placed on record to prove that Gursharan Singh was born in Britain. The Rent Controller further held that for setting up of a computer business, Gursharan Singh intended to return back to India, therefore, the ground of personal necessity was made out. The Rent Controller further held as under: “15. … … … However, petitioner applicant Gursharan Singh has proved on record his NRI status by 3 Civil Revision No.2521 of 2010 placing on record copy of British Pass-port. Moreover, pleadings have to be read as whole and mere drafting of loose pleadings cannot defeat statutory rights of the parties.” Thus, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, no interference is warranted by this Court and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 28, 2010 rps 4