IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.316 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.11.2009 Tarsem Singh Dhillon .....Petitioner versus Kamaljit .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.D.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amarjit Markan, 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 order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.316 and 317 of 2006 which have been preferred by the petitioner-NRI-landlord against the order dated 22.9.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara, whereby his eviction petitions under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short `the Act') have been dismissed after holding that he has not been able to prove his ownership over the demised premises, i.e., shop which is situated at Nakodar road, Hadiabad, Phagwara, District Kapurthala. Counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the records perused. C.R. No.316 of 2009 (O&M) 2 It is the specifically pleaded case of the petitioner-landlord that the demised premises was purchased by him from one Prem Singh son of Arjun Singh, r/o Mohalla Narang Shah Pura, Hadiabad, Phagwara, vide registered sale deed dated 6.8.1998, a copy of which has been duly exhibited on record as Ex.A-2. The respondent-tenant's case is that he was inducted as tenant by Arjun Singh. Arjun Singh unfortunately passed away and after his death, the property in question was inherited by his son Prem Singh from whom the petitioner-landlord has purchased the same. Faced with this situation, counsel for the respondent-tenants submits that the petitioner-landlord has led no evidence to prove that the demised shop exists on the same khasra number which he had purchased from Prem Singh vide the registered sale deed dated 6.8.1998, referred to above. Unfortunately, there is no discussion in the impugned order regarding identification of the khasra number where the demised shop is located. Similarly, the Rent Controller has apparently failed to take into consideration the binding of judicial precedents on the issue of personal necessity raised by the petitioner-landlord. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petitions are allowed; the impugned orders dated 22.9.2005 are set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Rent Controller, Phagwara, to decide the eviction petitions afresh and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. C.R. No.316 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Phagwara, on 16.12.2009. Dasti. 25-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE