HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 19.11.2005, passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be ejected, in proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) ONE Kewal Singh, who had purchased the shop on 3.7.1972, inducted the petitioner No. 1, as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. The rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 600/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1995. Said Kewal Singh died on 16.8.1989, leaving behind Harbans Kaur as his widow and sons namely Gurmit Singh and Manvinder Singh. It is Manvinder Singh who has filed the present petition under Section 13-B of the Act, on the ground that he is Non-Resident-Indian and owner of the property for the last five years and that he requires the shops in question for his bona fide requirement, therefore, the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted from the property. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence returned the findings that after the death of Kewal Singh, all his legal heirs became the joint owners of the property in question and that status of one of the co- owner does not come to an end merely on account of receipt of rent by the other co-owner. The learned Rent Controller after considering the facts of the previous ejectment petition filed by Harbans Kaur, held that the applicant Manvinder Singh as one of the co-owners of the property in question, is competent to seek ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. Further, it has been found that Harbans Kaur, the other co-owner has supported the case of the applicant and other co-sharer Gurmit Singh appeared as witness. In fact, Harbans Kaur appeared as attorney of the applicant.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the applicant has sought ejectment on the ground that shop in dispute came to his share in a family settlement and such family settlement shows that it was the 'Green' portion which came to the share of the applicant and whereas ejectment has been sought from the portion shown as 'Red' in the site plan. An application has been filed by the respondent-landlord to show that there is a mistake in the ejectment petition and the word 'Green' should be substituted as 'Red' in para No. 9 of the ejectment petition.;