IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Revision No. 2121 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 24.4.2009. Smt. Shanta Rani .... Petitioner. Versus Nasib Kaur. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J (Oral). Challenge in this revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 19.2.2009 whereby the application for leave to defent was declined in proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 as amended in Punjab. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three arguments to challenge the orders passed by Rent Controller. Firstly, it is argued that the ejectment petition filed by the landlady in respect of adjoining Shop No.3 has been dismissed and another petition has been filed through her son Kuldeep Singh. Therefore, the present petition for eviction is not maintainable. The said argument is not tenable for the reason that the dismissal of one of the ejectment petition against one of the tenant cannot be ground for dismissal for another ejectment petition. The landlady may be able to prove her requirement in respect of one shop It is further argued that the landlady has sought ejectment in proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The ground for eviction has not given up, therefore summoning procedure for eviction under Section 13-B of the Act, is not Civil Revision No. 2121 of 2009 -2- applicable. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid arrears of rent. The Rent Controller has not proceeded ahead with the ground of non-arrears of rent nor passed an order on the said ground. Therefore, the claim of arrears of rent will not render the petition under Section 13-B of the Act as not maintainable. Lastly, it is argued that ejectment petition has been filed by the son of the landlady in respect of Shop No.5. The eviction order has been passed on 14.5.2004. It is argued that the landlady is a co-owner in the said shop, therefore, the eviction of the petitioner sought from Shop No. 2 would not be maintainable. Even the said argument is not tenable. The landlady and her son may be co-owner, but each one of them is claiming possession of separae shops on separate grounds. It cannot be said that the requirement pleaded is not bona fide as the requirement of son and the mother can exist at the same time. No other argument is raised. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugend order. Hence the present petition is dismissed However, the petitioner is granted time till 30.6.2009 to vacate the permisses. April 24, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge