IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4449 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 28, 2009 Shri Narain Dass .....Petitioner versus Charanajit Sepla .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 11.6.2009, passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, ordering his eviction from the demised premises, in a petition filed by the respondent-specified landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short `the Act'). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent, claiming himself to be a Non Resident Indian (NRI) under Section 2 (dd), filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises, comprising a house situate within the revenue estate of village Rehru, now falling within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. The respondent/'specified landlord' averred that (i) he purchased the demised premises vide registered sale C.R. No.4449 of 2009 (O&M) 2 deed dated 19.6.1999 and is owner thereof for a period of more than 5 years; (ii) he requires the demised premises for his bonafide personal use and occupation as there is no other residential accommodation in his possession within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar; (iii) he being NRI, is entitled to be delivered immediate possession of the property by way of summary procedure laid down under Section 18-A of the Act. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant moved an application for leave to contest in terms of Section 18-A (4) of the Act, inter-alia, on the grounds that:- (i) the petition has been filed malafidely and for speculative purposes; (ii) the landlord is not a NRI and does not fulfill the requirements of Section 13-B of the Act; (iii) the petition has been filed through attorney and is not maintainable; (iv) the respondent is not the owner of the property nor he requires the same for his personal use, and (v) there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the petitioner was inducted as tenant by one Nasib Singh and a civil litigation is also pending between the petitioner and the said Nasib Singh. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 22.9.2007 granted leave to contest to the petitioner-tenant. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant filed a written statement reiterating the objections, noticed above. There can indeed be no quarrel that a NRI, if falls within the category of 'specified landlord' under Section 13-B of the Act and subject to the conditions that (a) he is owner of the premises from last more than 5 years of filing of the eviction petition; (b) he requires the premises for his personal use and occupation; and (c) does not have any such premises in C.R. No.4449 of 2009 (O&M) 3 his possession, can seek immediate possession of the premises by getting the tenant ejected through summary procedure contemplated by Section 18-A of the Act. In order to satisfy the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act, the respondent-landlord has placed on record photostat copy of his passport bearing No.437838666, issued by the United States of America, with a specific entry to the effect that the respondent's place of birth is “India”. The said document has remained uncontroverted. Otherwise also, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness thereof. The passport proves beyond any doubt that the respondent is NRI who is settled in U.S.A. Similarly, the respondent-landlord has brought on record a copy of the sale deed dated 19.6.1999 (Ex.P-4), whereby the demised premises was purchased by him. The respondent-landlord has also placed on record his affidavit (Ex.P-2) alongwith photostat copy of his passport, already referred to above. The General Power of Attorney in favour of Baldev Singh, through whom the eviction petition has been filed, has also been brought on record (Ex.P-1), besides the site plan of the demised premises (Ex.P-3). The above stated documentary evidence coupled with the deposition made by the landlord's attorney and also keeping in view the fact that no evidence whatsoever has been led to suggest that the respondent-landlord has any other alternative vacant premises in his possession, there can be no escape but to hold that the respondent-landlord has successfully established that he is a `Non Resident Indian' who falls C.R. No.4449 of 2009 (O&M) 4 within the category “specified landlord” under Section 13-B of the Act and is entitled to recover immediate possession of the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The counsel for the petitioner urges that since the respondent- landlord himself has not stepped into the witness box, one of the ingredient, namely, that he requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation, cannot be said to have been proved. I, however, do not find any merit in the contention. In Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that: “We hold that allegations made by the NRI landlord of his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide unless rebutted by the tenant by placement of cogent and material facts and evidence in support thereof at the stage of `leave to contest' before the Controller. We feel any other interpretation would completely whittle down and deny the tenant's right to show and prove that landlord does not in fact, or in law require suit premises.” No cogent proof of any other premises in occupation of the respondent-landlord has been brought on record. As against it, the attorney of the landlord has stepped into the witness box and testify the genuineness of the landlord's need. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, especially the legislative intent behind Section 13-B read with Section 18- A of the Act, no case to interfere with the impugned order dated 11.6.2009, by this Court in exercise of its revision jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. 28-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE