Civil Revision No. 1969 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1969 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.4.2009 Parmodh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Balbir Singh .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Present: Shri C.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the caveator. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 5.3.2009 in the proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as amended by Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001) [ for short referred to as `the Act']. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments to challenge the order passed by the Rent Controller. Firstly, it is argued that Surinder Pal Singh brother of Balbir Singh (respondent), has initiated independent proceedings under the Act for eviction of the petitioner on account of non payment of arrears of rent and that the petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground of nuisance to the neighbours. Therefore, the ejectment sought by the landlord is not maintainable as the brother of the landlord has sought ejectment as a Civil Revision No. 1969 of 2009 (2) landlord in a separate proceedings. Secondly, it is argued that the respondent-landlord is not the owner of the premises in dispute, which may entitle him to seek eviction of the tenant. Before considering the aforesaid arguments, the undisputed fact is that one Balee Singh was the owner of the shop in dispute and that the premises were let out to Rajinder Kumar, father of the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner about 40 years ago. Bali Singh and Rajinder Kumar, both have since died. In the ejectment petition filed by Surinder Pal Singh (Annexure P.4), it is categorically averred that after the death of Balee Singh, the shop in dispute, is succeeded by him and his brother. It is not the case of the tenant that Surinder Pal Singh became exclusive owner of the property in dispute on the basis of Will or otherwise. Therefore, Surinder Pal Singh and respondent Balbir Singh, are undisputedly, co-owners of the premises. As a co-owner, Balbir Singh is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant in summary proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act. The said issue has been examined by this Court in Karnail Singh v. Surinder Singh @ Chhinda, 2006(1) PLR 820 and Kewal Krishan v. Mohan Singh, 2006 (2) PLR 10 relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Others v. Bhagapandei Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Smt. Shavitri Aggarwala, 2004(3) SCC 178 and Dhanna Lal v. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Surinder Pal Singh is owner of the premises, is factually as also legally untenable. The second argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is again without any merit in view of the finding that Balbir Singh is the co- Civil Revision No. 1969 of 2009 (3) owner. As a co-owner, he is entitled to seek eviction in terms of the judgment referred to above. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, which may warrant interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. However, the order of ejectment shall not be executed uptil 30.6.2009, provided the petitioner deposits the entire arrears of rent and also furnishes an undertaking before the Rent Controller, within two weeks to vacate the premises on or before 30.6.2009. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16-04-2009 ds