CR No.2211 of 2008.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.2211 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 18.12.2009 **** Gurvinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Git Singh . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondent. ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) 1. This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the eviction order dated 18.03.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, in an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The eviction order pertains to a shop measuring 1 ½ marla and is a part of the building, the total size of which is 10 marlas, bearing plot No.10, situated on GT Road, Opp. Police Lines Road, Jalandhar City. 2. The status of the respondent as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) or his ownership qua the demised premises for a period of over five years before filing the eviction petition, are not in dispute. CR No.2211 of 2008.doc - 2 - 3. The petitioner-tenant contested the eviction petition on the solitary ground that the respondent-landlord does not require the demised premises for his own use and occupation. 4. It is in dispute that two separate eviction petitions were filed by the respondent/NRI-landlord against two sets of tenants including the petitioners. The other eviction petition filed against Mohinder Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Onkar Motor Garage who was occupying the remaining part of the demised building measuring 8.5 marlas was admittedly accepted and the eviction order passed against the said tenant has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and he has already vacated the said premises. 5. The respondent-landlord, however, has not been able to re- construct/re-model the premises in dispute as the remaining part measuring 1.5 marla, is occupied by the petitioner- tenants. 6. It is the case of the respondent that he has decided to return India and settle down permanently and wants to utilise the demised premises by constructing the house, which appears to be a scheduled building and can be used for both the residential and commercial purposes. The respondent- landlord is presently living in a village and owing to his old age, wants to shift to the urban area to get proper medical facilities. There can, indeed, be no doubt on the bona fides or genuineness of the need expressed by the respondent, especially, when there is a statutory presumption of genuineness attached to the requirement expressed by a NRI CR No.2211 of 2008.doc - 3 - landlord in an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act. 7. For the reasons afore-stated, no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.03.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is made out. 8. Dismissed. 9. However, taking into consideration all the attending circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has to make an alternative arrangement to shift from the demised premises, he is permitted to retain possession of the demised premises upto 31st March, 2010 subject to his depositing the entire arrears of rent, if any, and future rent before the 10th day of every calendar month. 10. Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 18.12.2009 vishal shonkar