SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revisions No. 5159 and 5350 of 2005, filed by two different tenants against the orders of their ejectment passed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') on two separate ejectment applications filed by the same Non Resident Indian landlord. Since in both these cases, identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenants from shop Nos. 11 and 6 forming part of the same building i.e. property No. B-XX- 732, situated at Gurdav Nagar, Ludhiana, under Section 13-B of the Act, on the ground that he requires the entire building including the shops in question for opening a show room of old and new cars. In the ejectment petitions, it has been pleaded by the respondent that he is a Non Resident Indian and he has returned to India and requires the demised premises, which are part of one building, for his own use to open the show room. For that purpose, the entire building bearing property No. B-XX-732 is required. He has also pleaded that he is owner of the demised premises for the last more than five years. The tenants filed the application under Section 18A of the Act for leave to contest the ejectment applications which was granted and petitioners contested the same on the grounds that the landlord is not a Non Resident Indian; he has no intention to come back to India; he has already got vacated another shop from a tenant under Section 13-B of the Act, hence subsequent ejectment petitions under Section 13-B of the Act are not maintainable, and the requirement of landlord is not bona fide. The Rent Controller, after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, ordered ejectment of the petitioners. It has been held that the requirement of the NRI landlord is bona fide. He required the entire building for his own use. Both the shops are part of single building, hence the respondent-landlord can get the ejectment of demised shops under Section 13-B of the Act. Hence, this revision petition.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners have made only two submissions. Firstly, that the respondent-landlord has already got evicted one tenant from part of the demised building under Section 13-B of the Act, therefore, he cannot get ejectment of all the other tenants, including the petitioners, from the other shops. Secondly, that the requirement of the respondent-landlord is not bona fide, and the finding recorded by the Rent Controller in this regard is against the evidence and based on surmises and conjectures.;