IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH C.R. No.759 of 2006 Date of decision: January 12,2007 M/s.Dilson Engg. Works V. Jagjit Singh Jandu CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL Present: Shri Arun Jain,Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.K.Battas,Advocate with Shri Raman Mahindera, Advocate, for the respondent. Viney Mittal,J.(Oral) The tenant is the petitioner before this court. His ejectment has been ordered under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the landlord has sought ejectment of five different tenants occupying five different shops and, therefore, the aforesaid summary procedure for ejectment from five different shops was not available to the landlord. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has maintained that all the five shops are the part of the same building. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also relied upon two judgments of this court in M/s. Bhandari General Store and another V. Makhan Singh Grewal 2006(1) RCR 307 and Harbhajan Singh V. Gurdial Singh 2006(1) R.C.R. 436 wherein ejectment petitions filed by a specified landlord qua more than one property being a part of the larger building was upheld by this court. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid judgments, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the tenant would be entitled to a period of two months for vacating the premises in question. A copy of the order be given dasti on usual charges. January 12,2007 ( Viney Mittal ) sks Judge