CR No.5445 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5445 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15 - 7 - 2010 M/s East India Transport Agency ....Petitioner v. Baldev Singh Sunner and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate and Mr.R.B.S.Chahal, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Baldev Singh Sunner, Tarlok Singh Sunner and Joginder Singh Sunner, who are the contesting respondents, are brothers. Being `Non Resident Indians', they filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioner. Tenant-petitioner filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act praying that leave to defend be granted. One of the primary arguments advanced before the Rent Controller was that building in question consisted of various shops. Each shop is separate, a self contained unit and does not CR No.5445 of 2008 [2] connect with each other. Thus, a cluster of independent unit existed at the spot and the same cannot become a single building and each shop will constitute a different building. Therefore, all shops in the building cannot be got vacated. What is the definition of the `building' was sought to be answered. The Rent Controller in the impugned judgment held that the entire building even though consisted of various shops let out to various tenants will constitute a `building' under the definition of 2(g) of the Act. This finding has been assailed in the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Hon'ble Apex Court was seized of the matter. This Court on 18.11.2008 had passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Hon'ble Apex Court is seized of the controversy that in case of many tenants whether the entire building is to be taken as composite building or it is to be determined qua each tenant. Many other Civil Revisions on the same point have been adjourned to 10.3.2009, to await the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of this, adjourned to 10.3.2009, to await the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. Interim order to continue.” Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed those petitions, on which reliance was placed. Having lost the primary argument, counsel for the petitioner has raised the following arguments:- Counsel has referred to Section 15 of the Act to urge that the CR No.5445 of 2008 [3] State Government has issued notification qua Rent Controller and the Rent Controller has not been vested with powers to decide the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act. Counsel stated that in the petition it has been specifically stated that the building in question does not form part of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, therefore, Rent Controller cannot decide the matter. Counsel state that its onus was on the landlord to prove, but this having not been proved by the landlord, eviction petition outrightly deserves to be dismissed. Counsel has further referred to the amendments made in the Act vide Punjab Act No.9 of 2001 that a specific notification ought to have been issued vesting the powers on the Rent Controller to try petitions under Section 13-B of the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that counsel for the petitioner very ably tried to create smoke screen and lead the Court on the sideways. On minute examination, there is no merit in the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner, as the Punjab Act No.9 of 2001 was introduced keeping the old Act intact and notification is to be considered keeping in view the provisions of General Clauses Act. Counsel states that the earlier notifications issued under the Act cannot have their retrospective effect. Once, the Rent Controller has been notified, subsequent amendment enhancing the powers of the Rent Controller or diminishing them, require no further notification under Section 13-B of the Act. In the case of a Non Resident Indian, the eviction petition was to be tried in a special manner, therefore, for all other amendments and Section 13-B of the Act, the Rent Controller remains the same. CR No.5445 of 2008 [4] Second contention advanced is that it was for the landlord to prove the issue that the shop does not fall under the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar by leading necessary evidence. As in the application for leave to defend, it has not been specifically pleaded that the shop was not situated in Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, at this stage, the tenant cannot raise this plea. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 15, 2010. JUDGE RC