CR Nos.2985, 2986, 3011 to 3014 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CR No.2985 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Narinder Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus Narinder Singh Bains ...Respondent (2) CR No.2986 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Jaswinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Narinder Singh Bains ...Respondent (3) CR No.3011 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Jaswinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Narinder Singh Bains ...Respondent (4) CR No.3012 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Sanjeev Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus Narinder Singh Bains ...Respondent (5) CR No.3013 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Munish Kumar Handa ...Petitioner Versus Narinder Singh Bains ...Respondent (6) CR No.3014 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus CR Nos.2985, 2986, 3011 to 3014 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** Narinder Singh Bains ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. A batch of six petitions bearing CR No.2985 of 2011 titled as `Narinder Kumar and another Vs. Narinder Singh Bains', CR No.2986 of 2011 titled as `Jaswinder Singh and others Vs. Narinder Singh Bains', CR No.3011 of 2011 titled as `Jaswinder Singh and others Vs. Narinder Singh Bains', CR No.3012 of 2011 titled as `Sanjeev Kumar and another Vs. Narinder Singh Bains', CR No.3013 of 2011 titled as `Munish Kumar Handa Vs. Narinder Singh Bains' and CR No.3014 of 2011 titled as `Bhupinder Singh Vs. Narinder Singh Bains' is being decided together as facts and law involved in these revision petitions are the same. In short, the landlord filed the petitions under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for seeking eviction of the tenants occupying building shown in red and yellow colour in the site plan which is part of Khasra No.46//7min(5-19), 46//7min (0-2), situated on Phagwara Road, Ward No.1 in the urban area of Mahilpur, Tehsil Garhshankar alleging that he is a Non Resident Indian, owner of the building from the last more than 5 years and requires it for his own use and occupation. The tenants filed their respective applications under Section 18-A of the Act. Leave to defend was not granted and consequently order of eviction was passed. Learned counsel for the tenants has basically raised following three issues before me: - i) The landlord is the co-owner in the demised premises and the other co-owners are not Non Resident Indians, therefore, he cannot maintain the eviction petition; ii) The demised premises was constructed by the brother of the CR Nos.2985, 2986, 3011 to 3014 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ***** landlord who had inducted the tenants, therefore, the eviction petition is not maintainable; and iii) The demised premises does not fall within the municipal limits of Mahilpur as the disputed Khasra Numbers are not mentioned in the notification dated 11.01.1993. Insofar as the first two issues are concerned, those have already been decided by this Court in favour of the landlord and against the tenant in CR No.4025 of 2006 titled as `Smt. Bachan Kaur and others V. Kabal Singh and another' decided on 26.04.2011 in which it has been held that a Non Resident Indian co-owner, who has not even let out the demised premises, can maintain the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In respect of the third and last issue, the learned Rent Controller has recorded the following finding: - “18. In so far as Khasra No.46/7 is concerned, it is significant to note that the applicants/tenants in the written arguments submitted in this case refer to the notification dated 30.08.1960, in which the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, were made applicable to Mahilpur town. Thereafter the area has been extended by subsequent notifications. The petitioner has brought on record the latest notification issued by the Punjab Govt. on 11.01.1993, page No.79 of the notification gives boundaries of the area within which the Municipal limits of Mahilpur now lie. No documentary evidence was led by the respondents/tenants to show that the land on which the demised building is constructed lies out side the Municipal limits of Mahilpur created by the notification of 11.01.1993. The respondent/tenants if they were convinced that Khasra No.46/7 lies out side the Municipal limits of Mahilpur could have got an L.C. Appointed but the respondents/tenants failed to do so. On the other hand, in order to clinch the issue CR Nos.2985, 2986, 3011 to 3014 of 2011 (O&M) -4- ***** and so as to not leave out any ground for doubt this court appointed two separate Local Commissioners. On the one hand report of the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Mahilpur was called regarding the fact as to whether the building in question lies within the Municipal limits of Mahilpur or not and on the other hand report of Kanungo of Mahilpur was called on the report as to whether the land comprised of khasra No.46//7 min (5-19), 46//7 min (0-2) falls within the Municipal limits of Mahilpur or not. Both the officials have given their separate reports to the effect that the building in question falls within the area of Ward No.1 of Mahilpur town. It is, therefore, clear that the land on which the building is constructed situated within the Municipal limits of Mahilpur. The provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act are made applicable in the Urban Area of Mahilpur. I am, therefore, of the considered view that there is no element of doubt in my mind that the land comprised of Khasra No.46//7 min (5-19), 46//7 min (0-2) falls within the Municipal limits of Mahilpur to which the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act. In the objection petition filed by the tenants against the report of the L.C., the tenants have not questioned the reports in so far as they found that the building in question lies within the Municipal Limits of Mahilpur. The objection of the tenants is that there is no report to the effect that provisions of the Act are extended to Khasra No.46//7 min (5-19), 46//7 min (0-2). This is, however, based on a misconception as the provisions of the Act are applicable to the entire Municipal area of Mahilpur and once it is shown that a building is located within CR Nos.2985, 2986, 3011 to 3014 of 2011 (O&M) -5- ***** the Municipal area the provisions U/s 13-B of the Act becomes applicable automatically.” I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller in this regard. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petitions and as such, the same are hereby dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. May 17, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge