C.R. No. 1750 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1750 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.07.2010 Manoj Yadav and others .... Petitioners Versus Dr. Om Parkash Gupta ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the respondent 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Tenants - petitioners have filed this petition challenging the judgment dated 11.12.2008 passed by Rent Controller Bathinda thereby directing the eviction of the tenants (petitioners herein) under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that landlord (respondent herein) preferred composite application under Section 13 and 13-B of the Act seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants from 1st and 2nd Floor part of building bearing M.C. No. 4962 situated at Sadar Bazar, Bathinda on the ground that petitioner is an NRI; He was practicing Doctor at London and now he has retired from his services, hence, he intends to settle at Bathinda and to start his medical practice at Bathinda; He needs tenanted portion to settle C.R. No. 1750 of 2009 2 himself in the premises permanently. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration cases put up by both the parties and after considering evidence made available on the record by both the parties came to the conclusion that landlord is an NRI and was residing in London and practicing as Doctor and now he stood retired in London and has returned to India permanently and requires the accommodation for his personal use. It is further observed by learned Rent Controller that undisputedly applicant seeking eviction is the owner of the property for the last 5 years before the initiation of the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved from the eviction order dated 11.12.2008 petitioners – tenants have approached this Court. 3. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that composite application was moved by the landlord – owner under Section 13 and 13-B of the Act. He further contends that procedure for disposal of application under Section 13 as well as 13-B of the Act is different. In an application under Section 13 burden is on the owner seeking eviction while under Section 13-B onus is on the tenant to prove that landlord does not have bona fide and genuine requirement of the tenanted premises. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini, 2005(2) HRR 668 and argued that Rent Controller has adopted the procedure given under Section 18-A of the Act and passed order under Section 13-B of the Act after observing that tenant has failed to discharge his burden that landlord does not have any bona fide need. 4. On being asked what prejudice is caused to the petitioners – tenants by moving composite application and by C.R. No. 1750 of 2009 3 deciding the application by the Rent Controller while adopting the procedure of Section 13 and passing the eviction order under Section 13-B of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that learned Rent Controller has placed entire onus on the tenants – petitioners to disprove the bona fide and genuine need of the landlord. 5. I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners for the reasons that petitioners – tenants were given opportunity to contest the application and they filed their written statement and have produced evidence. This is not the case where leave to defend under Section 13-B was ever refused. It is the duty of the landlord - owner to prove his genuine and bona fide need, in both the cases i.e. under Section 13 and under Section 13-B of the Act. 6. Having perused the file, I find that landlord has proved that he is the owner of the property for the last 5 years before the initiation of the proceedings. He is NRI and residing in London. He is practicing Doctor and stood retired. Now he has visited India and intends to settle in the tenanted accommodation permanently in India. I further find that composite application under Section 13 and 13-B of the Act is maintainable. No prejudice is caused to the tenants – petitioners by moving the composite application and by deciding the composite application by the Rent Controller. No other point is raised. 7. The petition is devoid of merit, hence is liable to be dismissed. 8. Dismissed. C.R. No. 1750 of 2009 4 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the respondent – owner states that he has no objection if reasonable time is granted. Considering the submissions, I direct that eviction order shall not be executed till 31.12.2010 on furnishing usual undertaking before Rent Controller within two weeks from today. If no undertaking is furnished by the petitioners within two weeks eviction order shall be executed forthwith. (ALOK SINGH) 06.07.2010 JUDGE reena