IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3041 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.11.2009 Kamal Malhotra Prop. M/s Neel Kamal Textiles. .....Petitioner versus Kuldip Singh Deol .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), has been declined and consequential eviction order has been passed. C.R. No.3041 of 2006 (O&M) 2 The respondent-landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act, inter-alia, claiming himself to be NRI-specified landlord-cum-owner of the demised premises, namely, Booth No.20, Model Town, New Market, Jalandhar. The petitioner's eviction has been sought on the ground that the demised premises is required by the respondent-landlord for his bonafide use and occupation as he has already returned to India and wants to start his own business in the demised premises. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant applied for leave to contest the eviction petition, for two reasons, namely, that:- (i) there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as Jasbir Singh Deol son of the respondent had earlier filed an eviction petition in the year 1988 claiming himself to be the landlord of the demised premises and since then the petitioner-tenant is depositing the monthly rent in the bank account of the said Jasbir Singh Deol, and (ii) there is no bonafide personal necessity shown by the respondent-landlord. Both the contentions have been repelled by the Rent Controller and rightly so after observing that the respondent has placed on record the sale deed dated 26.4.1984 whereby the demised premises was purchased by him from the previous owner. As regards the eviction petition filed in the year 1988 by the son of the respondent, it has been explained that three properties bearing Nos.18, 19 & 20 were purchased by the respondent, his wife Smt.Kewal Kaur and his son Jasbir Singh, respectively. Thereafter, all of them had given their power of attorney to C.R. No.3041 of 2006 (O&M) 3 the parents of the respondent who being illiterate persons had inadvertently mentioned that Jasbir Singh-son of the respondent was the owner of the demised premises, though he was owner of the adjoining property only. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that even if the respondent's son had filed the eviction petition for the limited purpose of recovering the arrears of rent from the petitioner, that did not make him the owner of the demised premises especially when the respondent has proved his ownership beyond any doubt by producing the sale deed dated 26.4.1984 in his name. It is obvious that the respondent is owner of the property for over five years before the institution of the eviction petition and thus, the second ingredient of Section 13-B of the Act, has already been satisfied. As regards the bonafide personal necessity, it is the case of the respondent-landlord that he has already returned to India and is ready to start his own business. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, once a NRI-landlord specifically pleads his personal necessity, there is a statutory presumption in his favour unless rebutted by the tenant by placing cogent and strong material in support thereof. The petitioner could not point out any other commercial property owned by the respondent-landlord where he can start his business or that he has taken benefit of Section 13-B of the Act in respect of any such other property. In the absence of any cogent and C.R. No.3041 of 2006 (O&M) 4 material evidence, at the stage of `leave to contest', no ground to interfere with the impugned order by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is made out Dismissed. 25-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE