A.N.JINDAL,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is in respect of the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which Pritam Singh, petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was refused leave to defend under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected.
(2.) DILBAGH Rai and Charanjit Rai, both the respondents (the petitioners in the ejectment application under Section 13-B of the Act hereinafter referred to as 'respondents') preferred a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from Shop No. 1 forming part of property Unit No. B-XXXIV-2224/1, Bassi Market, Joshi Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, which was opposed by the petitioner (tenant) on the ground that as per rent note, Dilbagh Rai is the owner of the property, but no title-deed showing the ownership of the property has been placed on the file; no relationship of landlord, and tenant exists between the petitioner and Charanjit Rai respondent and the attorney cannot file the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. No document i.e. passport or other relevant record has been placed on the file to show whether Dilbagh Rai is a NRI or not. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents are owning several properties and have instituted eviction petitions against all of them; out of the eight- shops, they have filed the eviction petitions against six tenants, whereas, the amended provisions of the Act do not enable an NRI to seek ejectment of more than one tenanted premises. More so, one of the respondents have got possession of four shops and after getting possession, Charanjit Rai respondent has further let out two shops to other persons, subject to increase of rent every year; no partition had taken place between both the brothers; if the respondents were in actual need of the shop, then they would not have further let out the shops after getting possession and that the respondents have deliberately concealed the factum of having other business/commercial properties in their possession; the present petition has been preferred just to increase the rent. Finally, it is averred that the respondents do. not require the shop for their own use or occupation and they have no intention to settle in India and thus, their case does not fall within the purview of Section 13-B of the Act. Upon notice, the respondents filed reply controverting all the allegations and submitted that the property in question is the exclusive ownership of Charanjit Singh, but both the brothers have been managing the same as landlords. At the time of filing of the petition, Dilbagh Rai had gone to England on a short visit and as such the petition was filed through his attorney; both the brothers have returned to India and are permanently settled here who were earlier NRIs. It is admitted that there are six tenants in six different shops which form part of the same property in fact, shop No. 3 was taken on rent by Kamaldeep Singh in the year 1992 and he along with his brother Gagandeep Singh had been carrying on business of embroidery of clothes and photography in the shop. In March, 1999, both the brothers approached respondent Dilbagh Rai and requested to transfer the tenancy in the name of Gagandeep Singh and at this Dilbagh Rai apprised them that he requires the shop for his own bona fide requirement to which both the brothers pleaded that they shall vacate shop No. 3 as and when demanded by him, who agreed to it. Consequently, rent note was executed on 17.3.1999 between Dilbagh Rai - respondent and the tenant Gagandeep Singh and since then Gagandeep Singh is carrying on the business. Similarly, shop No. 4 was on rent with Kundan Lal, father of Jatinder Kumar and both father and son were carrying on business of electric store. In June, 1999, Kundan Lal approached Dilbagh Rai-respondent to get the tenancy transferred in favour of his son Jatinder Kumar. At this, respondent No. 1 apprised them that he requires the shop for his bona fide necessity, to which both father and son pleaded that they shall vacate the shop in question as and when demanded by the respondent. Respondent No. 1 agreed to it and consequently, the rent note dated 8.1.1999 was executed between respondent No. 1 and Jatinder Kumar and since then the tenant Jatinder Kumar is in occupation of the shop as a tenant and is carrying on the same business of electric store. He never vacated the said shop. The tenants in shop Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8 have also promised to vacate the shops in their possession as and when asked to do so. Tenant Ved Parkash Sodhi occupant of shop No. 7 and had vacated the shop in his possession in November, 1999, whereas, tenants in shop Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Gagandeep Singh and Jatinder Kumar refused to abide by the undertaking and did not vacate the shop in April, 2000 when despondent No. 1 demanded the same and consequently petitions under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of personal necessity were filed against both of them, which are pending adjudication. It has been further repeated that since two shops were let out for the benefit of Charanjit Rai and to avoid any complication, both could be termed as owners/landlords. The land in village Shekhopur-Bakhalour is the ancestral property of the respondents and it has no relevancy to the present petition.
(3.) THE Rent Controller after hearing the parties refused to grant leave to defend to the petitioner and ordered his ejectment from the premises in dispute. Hence, this petition.;