CIVIL REVISION NO.3221 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 08, 2008 Badri Nath .....Petitioner VERSUS Amar Kaur ....Respondents 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. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has been declined leave to defend the petition filed for his eviction under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restriction) Act (for short, “the Act”). He has, thus, impugned the said order through the present revision petition. Badri Nath, petitioner, has filed this application for leave to contest, urging that there is no ground with the respondent to maintain this petition under Section 13-B of the Act and the same has been filed with malafide intention. It is further pleaded that respondent would not have any locus to file the petition as she is not CIVIL REVISION NO.3221 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: a Non Resident Indian. Further plea is that Amar Kaur, respondent, has not signed the petition and she is also not the exclusive owner of the demises premises. The need projected by her to get this premises vacated for her personal use has also been contested by saying that she has another shop situated towards southern side of the property and that the property which is with the respondent- landlady and is sufficient. In addition, it is also pleaded that the shop is an independent and is not forming a part of building from which another shop has already been got vacated and hence, present petition under Section 13-B of the Act could not be maintained to get the petitioner evicted from this shop. The respondent-landlady in response has controverted all the averments made in the application. She reiterated that she is an N.R.I. and required this premises for her own use and that the shop formed part of the same building which she requires for her own use and the use of her son for running business. The Rent Controller considered the rival contentions raised before it and rightly formulated the issues which required to be determined in this case. The Court noticed that it was required to be shown that the respondent landlady is a non-resident Indian and has returned to India permanently or for a temporary period and has a genuine requirement of accommodation for her or her dependent. It is also to be shown that she is owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings. The Rent Controller thereafter took up each and every ingredient and held that respondent-landlady was N.R.I as she had been residing in United CIVIL REVISION NO.3221 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: Kingdom for last 40 years and, thus, would be covered by the definition of term `N.R.I' under Section 2(dd) of the Act. It was also found that she proved herself to be the owner of the property on the basis of an admission made by the petitioner wherein he conceded that he took this shop on rent from Balbir Singh who is husband of the respondent-landlady, Amar Kaur. It was also noticed that Balbir Singh had died several years ago i.e. in the year 1970-71 and, thus, respondent-landlady is found to be owner of the property for more than five years from the date of institution of the petition. In fact, learned counsel representing the petitioner before this Court mainly contested the finding returned by the Rent Controller to the effect that shop formed part of the one building. The counsel referred to Annexure P-1, which is the site plan to show that there are three shops and merely because there is one staircase to go on the roof of the shops, which is stated to be one and common would not mean that they are part of the same building. He has also referred to the part of the finding, where as per the Municipal records, the demised premises is having municipal No.B-2/337, which is adjoining to the property bearing Municipal No.B-2/336. From this, it is sought to be contended that these are two separate shops and, thus, should be taken as two different buildings. This line of submission was advanced before the Rent Controller as well and has been dealt with by the Court in a proper manner to come to the conclusion that both the shops would form part of the same building. The site plan relied upon by counsel for the petitioner has been referred to observe that there is a common CIVIL REVISION NO.3221 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: staircase and the intervening wall and the roof which had been laid would fortify the submission that the building is one and common and both things forms part of the same building. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material from the record to controvert this finding returned by the Court of Rent Controller. The Court has also considered the need of the respondent-landlady for use of this entire premises for her personal use and use of her son to set up a Cash and Carry General Store. The aspect of bonafide requirement has also not been seriously contested before me. Thus, the Rent Controller found all the ingredients established to entertain this petition under Section 13-B of the Act and thereafter declined the leave sought by the petitioner to contest this petition. I do not see any infirmity in the finding or the approach adopted by the Rent Controller. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. July 08 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE