Civil Revision No.4096 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4096 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 28, 2008 Gurmit Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS Rachhpal Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Puneet Bali and Mr.Hittan Nehra, Advocates, for the petitioner. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of three Civil Revision Nos.4096 of 2007 (Gurmit Kaur v. Rachhpal Singh), 4488 of 2007 (Gurmit Kaur v. Pal Singh) and 4489 of 2007 (Gurmit Kaur v. Shashi Kanda). The facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.4096 of 2007. The petitioner-NRI is aggrieved against the order granting leave to defend the petition to the respondent and has filed this revision petition. Petitioner filed petition under Section 13-B of the Civil Revision No.4096 of 2007 : 2 : East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”) for eviction of the respondent from a shop which she has purchased vide sale deed dated 16.4.1971. Claiming herself to be an NRI under the statutory provisions, she has filed an eviction petition against the respondent and some other tenants, who are in occupation of the shops in the same building. Petitioner claims that she would need the shops for her bonafide use and for use of her family. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend under Section 18-A of the Rent Act. The respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioner to be an NRI and he says that she has not acquired the status of an NRI. The main ground in support of this submission appears to be that respondent had been paying rent to one Gurbachan Singh and as such it is stated that she cannot maintain petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Finding that triable issues would arise in the petition, which have also been enumerated, the leave to defend has been granted to the respondent. The primary grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that same court in some other cases concerning the shops in the same building has come to the conclusion that petitioner is an NRI. In this regard, the learned counsel has made reference to order, Annexure P-9, where the same petitioner Gurmit Kaur has been referred to be an NRI and leave to defend sought by Vijay Kumar tenant-respondent in that case has been declined. While doing so, the court has made reference to the copy of her passport and the sale deed dated 16.4.1971. The date of the sale in the instant case is also 16.4.1971. Civil Revision No.4096 of 2007 : 3 : Mr.Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner has something to say when he points out that the same court cannot take two different views in respect of the same person, when even the building in dispute is also the same. What is required to be seen is whether petitioner is an NRI or not. If otherwise some triable issues arise, the court may so hold but it cannot be accepted that a person can be taken or considered as NRI by the same court in one case and given a different status in the other. This situation would identically arise in all the three revision petitions. The respondents ofcourse are different. On this short ground, it is not possible to sustain the impugned orders. The same are accordingly set-aside. It would be appropriate to remand these cases back to the Rent Controller, Nakodar to reconsider the issues in the light of judgments passed in respect of other cases where the status of the petitioner has been found to be of NRI. Needless to mention that this court has not expressed any view on merits of the controversy and having regard to the facts pleaded before the court, the court would be at liberty to take any independent decision in cases where leave to defend is sought. Mr.Bali points out, as a matter of fact, that the case where the leave to defend was declined has acquired finality upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. All such precedents may be placed before the Rent Controller for arriving at a proper decision in this regard. The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of. April 28, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE