C.R. No.3149 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.3149 of 2007 Date of Decision: 18.1.2008 Vivek Bedi and another .....Petitioners Vs. Sohan Singh .... .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the respondent. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is, to an order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nawanshahr, directing the petitioners ejectment under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') as amended by Punjab Act No.9 of 2001 dated 31.5.2001. The petitioners ejectment has been ordered on the ground that the respondent-landlord is a Non Resident Indian, who requires the premises for his personal necessity. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the tenant occupies a small shop, in a building, containing 17 shops. The landlord, a Non Resident Indian has been granted ejectment orders qua all 17 tenants by invoking the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. It is submitted that Section 13-B of the Act permits the landlord to choose one premises, but in this case all 17 tenants have been evicted. It is also submitted that if the landlord demolishes the building and constructs a hotel, as proposed or C.R. No.3149 of 2007 2 sells the building, the petitioners would not be able to recover possession, in accordance with Section 13-B(3) of the Act. Counsel for the respondent, however, states that similar pleas raised by other tenants, against similar ejectment orders with respect to this very building came up for consideration in C.R. Nos. 1374, 1246, 1374, 1379, 2572, 2756, 2757, 2758, 3118 and 3119 of 2007. Vide order dated 17.9.2007, these petitions have been dismissed. The controversy in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgement and, therefore, the present petition be also dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners does not deny the aforementioned fact but states that the matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order dated 20.12.2006 and the paper book. It is not denied that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the judgement dated 17.9.2007 passed in C.R.Nos.1374, 1246, 1374, 1379, 2572, 2756, 2757, 2758, 3118 and 3119 of 2007. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the landlord would be bound by the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 13-B of the Act. 18.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE