- (1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order, whereby, his application for leave to contest the eviction application filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act ( for short "the Act") by the respondent-landlord was declined and further he was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises.
(2.) The brief facts out of which this petition has arisen, as culled out by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, reads as follows:- "The petitioner is Non Resident Indian and holder of Passport No. WBB66074 issued at Canada. It has been further averred that earlier Smt. Raj Kaur wife of Fauja Singh was owner/landlady of the property in dispute. She died intestate on 10.2.1977. Her husband Fauja Singh has pre-deceased her who died intestate on 20th April, 1956. The brother of the petitioner Ranbir Singh has also expired on 24.5.1970 and now the petitioner and her sister Joginder Kaur are the only legal heirs of deceased Raj Kaur and they are co-sharer in the property in dispute. The entire property is shown in the site plan attached with the petition. The respondent is tenant under the petitioner in the shop as shown red in the site plan attached. The petitioner has also appointed his sister Joginder Kaur as his Special Attorney vide Special Power of Attoney dt. 2.2.01 to prosecute the present petition/legal proceedings in all respect. The respondent is a tenant in the shop forming part of property as shown red in the site plan attached under the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. Thus there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner is a specified landlord defined under Section 2(dd) of the East Punjab Urban rent restriction Act, 1949 as amended by Act No. 9 of 2001 and is at present R/O Canada and has returned to India for a short time. He requires the premises in question for his own use and occupation and for use and occupation of his family. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) Upon notice, petitioner appeared and filed an application for grant of leave to contest on the following grounds:- (i) That the petition filed by the petitioner under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as amended by Act No. 9 of 2001 is not legally maintainable since it does not fall under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as well as the petition does not fulfill the requirements of section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. (ii) That, admittedly there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and this is serious question to be decided by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. He is neither owner nor landlord of the property in question. (iii) That in para No. 5 of the petition, it is clearly mentioned that Gurdip Singh has filed another ejectment petition against one Om Parkash another tenant in a shop bearing Property No. BV- 361 (Old) B-XI-333 9New), Benjamin Road, Ludhiana. The said property No. B-V-361 (Old) B-XI-333 (New) Benjamin Road,Ludhiana consists of five shops and vacant site measuring about 350 sq. yards. The front five shops have been let out to different tenants and has a separate passage. All these shops have been let out separately and under the definition contained in section 2-A of the East Punjab Urban rent Restriction Act, each shop let out to the tenant is a building and the provisions of East Punjab Urban rent restriction Act as amended by Act No. 9 of 2001 in sub para 2 gives right to landlord to get vacated only one non residential building. Admittedly all shops in possession of different tenants are let out for commercial purposes and are non residential buildings. Thus, the ejectment petition against two different tenants in possession of two separate shops is not maintainable and law does not permit to have two shops vacated. This is a very serious point to be decided and warrant grant of leave to contest. (iv) That the petition is also bad as provisions of section 13-B of East Punjab Urban rent restriction Act are not fulfilled. All the shops are in possession of different tenants and so as to qualify the requirement of section 13-B, the landlord has to allege and prove his return to India. The petitioner occasionally visits India and goes out of India and otherwise he is permanent resident of India. (v) That without prejudice to the rights of the applicant, it is submitted that the petitioner as per the averments in possession of huge building as well as vacant site which he has not shown in the plan. As such, the petition is based on concealment of facts which disentitle him to file petition u/s 13-B of the Rent Act. (vi) That as per the averments made by the petitioner in the petition that he is an old man of 80 years and as such he is not capable of doing any business as alleged much less the business of cycle stand. Thus, his need as per the allegations is not proved. Moreover, he has not got any plan sanctioned for starting such a business nor any license has been obtained as required under the law.;