CR No.7702 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.7702 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.05.2011 Sat Pal Sagar Proprietor M/s Sagar Electricals and Lights . . .Petitioner Versus Jai Kaur . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) The tenant is in revision against the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana dated 29.9.2010 by which an application filed by him under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) for seeking leave to defend in the petition filed by landlord under Section 13B of the Act has been declined and his eviction has been ordered from the shop, which is part of residential building. In short, the landlord filed the eviction petition alleging himself to be a Non Resident Indian settled at 32 Murdak Road, Handsworth, Birmingham, U.K. having an Indian passport issued on 31.10.2006 from the Passport Office Birmingham, UK valid upto 31.10.2016 and having purchased the demised premises vide sale deed dated 8.12.1978 and 12.12.1978, respectively. He alleged that the demised premises is in possession of the tenant at a monthly rent of `500/- for the period of 18 years, who has not been paid the arrears w.e.f. September 2004 despite requests and demands. It is further alleged that the landlord is leading retired life and now she wanted to settle in India after demolishing the entire building and raising new construction. It is alleged that she wanted to CR No.7702 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - solemnize the marriage of her grand-children as per Indian culture. The eviction petition was contested by an application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A of the Act which did not find favour of the learned Rent Controller. In this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the tenanted demised premises is a part of the residential building which is sought to be demolished by the landlord for the purpose of reconstruction but even after reconstruction the area under the demised premises has to be kept vacant in terms of the Municipal Law. However, he submits that this issue was raised before the Rent Controller but there is no finding and has candidly admitted that no efforts were made to bring it to the notice of the learned Rent Controller that although this point was raised but it was not decided. Secondly, it was submitted that the demised premises is a part of residential building, therefore, it cannot be got vacated under Section 13-B of the Act for residential purposes. In this regard, he has relied upon decision of this Court in the case of “Gopi Ram Vs. Jagan Nath” 2003 (4) Civil & Rent Judicial Reports 93 and “Dharam Pal Daulay Vs. P.S. Bhandri and others” 1993(1) Rent Law Reporter 834. In reply, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the first submission made by the tenant is neither here not there as the same has not been even raised before the Rent Controller because had it been raised, the Rent Controller would have decided it and if it is not decided then they should have filed a review application before the said Court. Moreover, it is submitted that it is not explained that under which Municipal Law the portion under demised premises even after vacation has to be kept open. Secondly, it is submitted that in the case of “Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini” AIR 2006 Supreme Court 59, it has been held that Section 13-B of the Act does not postulate that the NRI- landlord cannot seek ejectment of a non-residential building if it is required for residential purposes. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Insofar as first submission is concerned, firstly, it is not argued before the Rent Controller and even it is argued and the Rent Controller has not decided it as urged then the tenant should have filed a review application. In any case, the CR No.7702 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - learned counsel for the tenant has miserably failed to point out any provision from the Municipal Law as alleged which provides that the portion under the demised premises even after demolition has to be left open. In the absence of any sanction of law, I do not accept this argument raised by learned counsel for the tenant. In respect of the second argument, the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa (Supra) has observed as under: “After going through the record we do not find that the tenant has produced any material along with his affidavit whereby he could said to have rebutted the presumption in favour of the landlord of his bona fide requirement and thus the two courts have rightly rejected his assertion that the need of the landlord is not genuine or bona fide. Section 13-B permits ejectment of a tenant from the residential or non residential premises or from the schedule building if the NRI requires it for his or for the use of his dependent. Section 13- B does not postulate that the NRI- landlord cannot seek ejectment of a non-residential building if the requirement of the landlord is for residential purpose.” In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 11, 2011 JUDGE Vivek