CIVIL REVISION NO.3101 OF 2004 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 05, 2008 Mukesh Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Kuldeep Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was denied leave to defend in an eviction petition filed by the respondent, Kuldeep Singh under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, “the Act”). He has, thus, filed the present revision petition to impugn the said order. Respondent filed this petition before Rent Controller, Jalandhar, pleading that the shop in dispute has devolved on him on death of Harbhajan Singh, he being his legal heir. The demised shop CIVIL REVISION NO.3101 OF 2004 :{ 2 }: was rented by Late Harbhajan Singh @ Rs.225/- per month. Claiming that the petitioner is a Non-resident Indian having been brought up and educated in England, where he had been working, had now come to India for making his living here. He had accordingly sought vacation of shop Nos.3 and 5 in order to start his own business. On refusal, made by the petitioner, he has filed the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Notice was issued to the petitioner, who filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act. It is claimed that the respondent is neither owner nor landlord of the premises. It is also pleaded that the respondent is not a Non-resident Indian as per definition under the Act and is not entitled to seek eviction. It is further pleaded that this petition has been filed only to seek benefit of new enactment with ulterior motive and purpose. Having regard to the contention raised before the Court, the Court rightly noticed the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act. The Court accordingly found that the respondent who was born at Kala Sanghia, District Kapurthala, had a passport issued by United Kingdom. It is accordingly found that he would be covered by the definition of the N.R.I. under the Act. The Rent Controller also rightly found that the plea raised by the petitioner that the respondent wanted Rs.20 lacs for selling the shop would not effect the merit of the case. At the time of hearing of the petition, the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Rent Controller has relied upon the case of Sohan Lal Vs. Swaran Kaur, 2003 (2) RCR 407 wherein it CIVIL REVISION NO.3101 OF 2004 :{ 3 }: had been held that there is a bonafide requirement in favour of the landlord and that there is no necessity to grant leave to contest because it would result into defeating the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. The counsel pointed out that this judgment was subject matter of Special Leave Petition No.17864 of 2002 where operation of the judgment had been stayed. The Revision Petition was adjourned to await the decision of said S.L.P. It is conceded that the S.L.P. has since been dismissed. Otherwise also, the law in regard to the rights of N.R.I to seek eviction of the tenant under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act is well settled and regulated. As held in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, JT 2005 (12) Supreme Court 442, the person to succeed under this provision is required to show that he is an N.R.I and that he has returned to India permanently or temporarily and requirement of accommodation either by him or his dependent is genuine and that he is owner of the property for the last five years. All these requirements are satisfied in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, as a last resort, submitted that respondent never made any averment in the petition that he is owner of this property for more than five years from the date of filing of the petition. Mr.Sandhawalia, appearing for the respondent, however, points out that no such objection was ever raised by the petitioner before the Court of Rent Controller. Otherwise also, he would point out that the petitioner has acquired this property being legal heir of Harbhajan Singh, who had given this property on rent, which would show that the respondent has been the CIVIL REVISION NO.3101 OF 2004 :{ 4 }: owner of the property for more than five years. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, declining the leave to defend to the petitioner and would dismiss the present revision petition. May 05 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE