CR No.2325 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2325 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13 - 8 - 2010 M/s Vikas Studio and another ....Petitioner v. Makhan Singh Grewal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kashmira Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Makhan Singh Grewal, a Non Resident Indian was owner of property No.B-XX-732, Grewal Building, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana. In this building 13 shops were built. Makhan Singh Grewal instituted separate eviction petitions under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') against all the tenants. One of the tenant, M/s.Bhandari General Store alongwith another tenant, namely, M/s Sachdeva Watch & Electric Store filed two separate revision petitions in this Court against the order of ejectment. In the revision petitions, it was pleaded that each shop will constitute CR No.2325 of 2009 [2] `Building' within the meaning of `Building' as defined in the Act. Therefore, the argument advanced was that the landlord could get vacated only one shop. The Court had to determine whether the entire building in which 13 shops were let out will be taken as a composite building (one unit) or each tenancy shall be construed as a separate building. Qua this very building and qua the same landlord, in Civil Revision No.5159 of 2005, titled as `M/s Bhandari General Store and another v. Makhan Singh Grewal', decided on 22.2.2006, a Single Bench of this Court concluded as under:- “8. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court squarely covers the case of the respondent- landlord. In this case also, one building was let out in different parts and in that situation, he is entitled to recover the immediate possession of all the parts by filing different petitions. The question whether the different parts let out to different tenants are part of one building or separate buildings is a question of fact which is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Before getting ejectment of different tenants from different parts, it has to be established that all the parts let out to different tenants are part of one building. In the instant case, the Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence available on record, has recorded a finding of fact that all the 13 shops are part and parcel of one building. In this regard, the Rent Controller has relied upon various photographs, site plan and the report of the Architect, which clearly establish that all the shops constitute one building and the suit building as a single unit was constructed at one time. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact. Thus, in my opinion, the ejectment orders passed against the petitioners regarding two different shops which form part of one building, cannot be said to be illegal on the ground that under Section 13B of the Act, the landlord has already got vacated one shop, which was also part of the said building.” CR No.2325 of 2009 [3] It is not denied that the above-said judgment rendered by a Single Bench of this Court was subject matter of Civil Appeal No.5257 of 2006, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8159 of 2006. Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and upheld the judgment of learned Single Bench. It will be pertinent to mention here that in a bunch matter, a number of Civil Appeals were dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.11.2009. Therefore, the primary argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that each shop will constitute `building' and the landlord is only entitled to cause eviction of one shop, is no longer available to the petitioners in view of the affirmation of judgment of this Court by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Mr.Mittal has stated that he has other two arguments in his armour to assail the order of eviction. He submitted that the landlord- respondent has another building in the urban area of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Qua that building he has filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the landlord-respondent could not file petition under Section 13-B of the Act qua the present building. It stands now concluded that Section 13-B of the Act can be invoked qua one building. The landlord-respondent had sought eviction of the tenants from this building under Section 13-B of the Act. In case of other building, if the tenant had not paid the rent, the landlord is not excluded from filing a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant for non payment of rent. However, there is no denial to the fact that on the ground of personal necessity, the landlord has sought eviction of the tenants pertaining to this building alone under Section 13-B of the Act. CR No.2325 of 2009 [4] Counsel for the petitioners next contended that the landlord- respondent is also owner of another property No.202-E, Focal Point, Dhandari Kalan and the same is on rent with another tenant. This argument was also considered in M/s. Bhandari General Store's case (supra), as a similar contention was raised in para 9 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “9. Regarding the second contention that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide, counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the respondent-landlord is already having possession of 5 shops in the said building. He is also owning plot measuring 500 square yards i.e. Plot No.E-202 in Focal Point. They further submit that the landlord is a citizen of U.K. and has not returned to India nor he has any intention to return and all of his family members are well settled in U.K. In fact, he does not require the shops in question, which were let out to the petitioners. Actually, he wants to sell the shops at a higher price. In this regard, he has also given an advertisement in the news paper. They have further submitted that no show room of old and new cards is feasible in the demised premises and actually, the alleged need of the respondent-landlord is not bonafide.” While dealing with this argument in M/s. Bhandari General Store's case (supra), a Single Bench of this Court held as under:- “.....In my opinion, the tenants have not placed on record any strong and cogent material rebutting the strong presumption in favour of the landlord. Undisputedly, the respondent is an NRI. He has returned to India. He requires the building in question for his personal use as he wants to open a show room of old and new cars. His case is covered by the requirement of Section 13B of the Act. According to him, the total area of the entire building is required by him for the aforesaid purpose. Merely because, the landlord is owning some other property in the CR No.2325 of 2009 [5] Focal Point is no ground to hold that his need is not genuine. It is the choice of the landlord to get one building vacated under Section 13B of the Act out of two or more buildings. The landlord has already returned to India and opened his office in the 5 shops in his possession and he wants to construct the show room in the remaining portion of the building. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it can not be said that the need of the respondent-landlord is not bonafide, as alleged by the petitioners.” Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel that the landlord has also sought eviction from the building in the Focal Point. Mr.Bhan submits that identical eviction petitions were filed against other tenants in which personal necessity of the landlord had been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment in M/s. Bhandari General Store's case (supra) was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, no different view can be formulated and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel are rejected. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 13, 2010. JUDGE RC