CR No.7825 of 2009(O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7825 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:21.4.2011 Tajinder Singh . . .Petitioner Versus Satwant Singh Virdee . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S. Marwaha, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 14.10.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar by which an application filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) has been allowed after dismissing the application filed by the tenant under Section 18-Aof the Act. In brief, the landlord filed a petition in order to seek eviction of the tenant from his residential House No.3531, Gali No.2, Abadi Bahadur Nagar, Khsara No.315, Khatoni No.129, Revenue Estate, Amritsar-I on the ground that he is a Non Resident Indian and requires the demised premises for his own personal use and occupation. In the application he had alleged that he was born on 18.1.1943 at Nairobi (Kenya). He got education there upto the age of 17 years then he joined Law Department in Nairobi and thereafter joined Food and Agricultural Organisation of United Nations as an Administrative Officer and after his retirement, he is residing at 67, Glanmor Road Slough, SL 2 5 LH, Berkshire, U.K. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlord has failed to prove that he is a person from Indian origin as he has only alleged that he is a NRI whereas a person who is an NRI has to be a person of Indian origin. In CR No.7825 of 2009(O&M) - 2 - this regard he has submitted that the landlord has to prove that his parents, grand- parents or even great-grandparents were Indian, only then he could maintain an application under Section 13-B of the Act. In reply, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that this was never the case of the tenant before the Rent Controller as is evident from his application filed under Section 18-A of the Act wherein he had only alleged that the landlord is not NRI. Had he taken the plea that he is not a person of Indian origin then he would have suitably replied that contention but since only the plea of NRI was raised, the landlord had placed on record his passport etc. from which the Court has believed that he is NRI. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord has alleged in his Legal Notice dated 25.11.2004, which is served through Ms.Balvinderjit Kaur, Advocate that he is the husband of Jaswant Kaur whereas in the eviction petition has claimed to be her son. In this regard, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that it could be a typographical mistake in the legal notice because it is not signed by the landlord. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller while allowing the application filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act. Hence, the present is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 21, 2011 JUDGE Vivek