Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 9.10.2006 whereby the petitioner's application for leave to contest sought under Section 18 -A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") filed by the respondents under Section 13 -B of the Act was dismissed.
(2.) THE respondents have sought ejectment on the ground that Ranbir Singh Sahota, respondent No. 1 herein, is a British passport holder, whereas respondent No. 2 is a Canadian passport holder. Respondent No. 2 has executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 1. It is pointed out that the property in question was purchased by respondent No. 1 and Major Randhir Singh, father of respondent No. 2, vide registered sale deed dated 23.07.1968. Major Randhir Singh died in 17.01.1976 leaving behind respondent No. 2 as one of his legal heirs. Daljit Kaur, wife of Major Randhir Singh, also died on 3.3.2002. Another son of Major Randhir Singh, Air Commander N.P.S. Sahota, also died on 1.4.1995, whereas other legal heirs have given their power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 1 herein. The respondents sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 2 is settled in Canada and now he has retired. He intends to come to India permanently whereas respondent No. 1 has come back from England to India permanently. The intention of the respondents is to do business and to construct Shopping Malls as they are to start business of big consumer stores. The respondents pleaded that they satisfy the requirement to seek eviction of the petitioner herein as Non Resident Indian in a summary manner in terms of Section 13 -B of the Act.
(3.) IN an application for leave to contest, the petitioner denied that the respondents are at all owners of the property in question. It was alleged that one Daljit Kaur and Sukhdev Kaur are the landladies from whom the premises were taken on rent in the year 1978. Earlier, the ejectment petitions were filed in the year 1987 and in the year 1995 but the said ejectment petitions were withdrawn. It was pointed out that respondent No. 1 used to collect rent from the petitioner every month but never claimed to be owner of the property in question ever. The other ground taken was that the property is residential in nature and the same cannot be got vacated for constructing a commercial building. It was also pointed out that respondent No. 1 has been living in India much prior to introduction of Section 13 -B of the Act, therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of summary eviction of the tenant. In respect of respondent No. 2, it was pleaded that he continues to live abroad and has not come back, therefore, petition is not maintainable. It was also pointed out that after the death of Randhir Singh, his wife Daljit Kaur became the exclusive owner of the property. She died on 3.3.2002 and, therefore, respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be owner of the property in question for a period of five years immediately prior to filing of the petition. It was also pointed out that the respondents have got another commercial plot at Jalandhar and as such the respondents have got alternative vacant accommodation for starting their business and, therefore, petition for eviction under Section 13 -B of the Act is not maintainable.;