1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5193 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.08.2011 Parminder Singh Chahal ....Petitioner Versus Gurmeet Singh Sidhu ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Devaki Anand, Advocate for the respondent. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 14.6.2010 of Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the application of the petitioner for leave to contest an ejectment petition filed by the respondent, under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') as extended to Chandigarh vide notification dated 9.10.2009, was rejected. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the ejectment petition was filed by the respondent claiming that he had returned to India finally on 15th March, 2009 and requires the demised premises for his bona fide need. 2 Civil Revision No.5193 of 2010 (O&M) However, in the application for leave to contest the petitioner had submitted that the petition was not maintainable under the provisions of the Section 13-B of the Act. Vide impugned order, aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was rejected. On 19th August, 2010, on the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist argues that as per paragraph No.1 of the eviction petition, landlord has stated that he had finally returned to India on 15.03.2009. Learned counsel for the tenant further argues that Section 13- B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was made applicable in the Union Territory of Chandigarh vide notification dated 09.10.2009. He further contends that since landlord had returned permanently prior to the notification dated 09.10.2009, hence, he does not fall within the definition of NRI. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the tenant- petitioner requires consideration. Notice of motion. Mr. Pradeep Bedi, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent accepts notice. List for final hearing on 09.11.2010. Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes that meanwhile impugned order shall not be given effect to.” Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that a judgment passed in case titled as Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal vs. Harcharan Singh and another 2010(2) RCR 422 wherein a similar question was raised, this 3 Civil Revision No.5193 of 2010 (O&M) Court observed as under:- “Not only this,from the dictum of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra), it is clear that Section 13-B was enacted keeping in mind the plight of Indian residents intending to return to India after long years abroad did not find conditions congenial in their own country on their return either to settle down or to take up any business. If the object to enact Section 13-B is kept in mind while reading the definition of NRI under Section 2(dd) of the Act, the only interpretation possible is that if an NRI returns to India on or before the enactment of Section 13-B, he is entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act. It is not all necessary that an NRI should return to India only after the enactment of Section 13-B.” Thus, this Court has already opined that if an NRI returns to India on or before the enactment of Section 13-B, he is entitled to seek eviction under the aforesaid provisions and it is not necessary at all that an NRI should return to India only after the enactment of Section 13-B. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any other different view taken by this Court or any other Court. Thus, in view of the judgment of this Court in Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal's case (supra), I do not find any merit in this petition. No other point was argued. Dismissed. 10.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge 4