Civil Revision No. 1447 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1447 of 2010 Date of decision : 4.3.2010 Hardayal Chand (NRI) and others Petitioners Versus Parshotam Dass Sharma and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioners S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners, who are Non-resident Indians filed a petition for ejectment of the respondents-tenants from the tenanted premises on a plea of personal necessity in terms of provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 29.3.2006. That matter did not come to be disposed of by the year 2009. The petitioner herein was compelled to file Civil Revision No.6461 of 2009 for issuance of a direction to the learned Rent Controller to decide the relevant application filed by the tenant therein (for leave to defend) on the next date of hearing. In the petition before this Court, the petitioners herein have again applied for the issuance of a direction to the learned Rent Controller to dispose of the plea for leave to defend and also the petition on merits at an earlier date. The learned counsel for the petitioners says that though he is concerned about the non-compliance of the order dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by a Coordinate Bench (Surya Kant, J.) of this Court in Civil Revision No. 6461 of at the hands of the learned Rent Civil Revision No. 1447 of 2010 -2- **** Controller, he would be content and interests of justice would be served if a time bound disposal of the application for leave to defend and also the petition on merits is ordered by this Court. It is otherwise stated at the bar that the matter is fixed for 12.3.2010 The factual scenario, as apparent from the pleadings-based presentation (duly verified, ofcourse), appreciated in the light of the order dated 6.11.2009 granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court does not at all make a pleasant reading. This Court as sentinel of the public interest in the matter of dispensation of justice, is concerned with the fact that the order dated 6.11.2009 granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.6461 of 2009 is averred to have been violated by the learned Rent Controllers who dealt with the trial of the relevant rent petition from time to time. How exactly could the learned Rent Controllers defy the orders granted by (a Coordinate Bench) of this Court with impunity defies logical comprehension. It is with a precise purpose that the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act were brought into being. The idea was to avoid harassment to the NRIs who found harassed on account of the vicissitudes of the procedural dispensation of justice in the courts oflaw in India. Inordinate delay deterred the NRIs from making investments in India. They felt embarrassed by the fact that the Courts in their native country were not in a position to afford early succour to them. It was with a view to alleviate delay-related suffering that provisions of Section 13-B of the Act were enacted. That provision conceptualizes the filing of an eviction petition at the hands of an NRI who has owned the tenanted premises for a period of five years. Though the tenant is entitled to apply under Section 18-A of the Act for the leave of the Controller to defend, it would be expected that the Civil Revision No. 1447 of 2010 -3- **** matter would get the immediate attention of the learned Rent Controller. If a petition of the indicated category, which an NRI-landlord had filed to obtain the possession of the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity gets delayed by half a decade or so it would defeat the very purpose of the enactment. In view of the restricted relief applied for in the course of the presentation, I do not propose to notify the filing to the party (of the petition) opposite. The petition can be disposed of in limine with effective relief. If the party opposite notices any factual inaccuracy in the presentation made before this Court, it would be entitled to have its say by making an appropriate motion before this Court. The petition shall stand disposed of according with a direction to learned Rent Controller to dispose of the application for leave to defend on 12.3.2010 itself and the main petition be disposed of within one month from that day thereafter. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. March 04, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE