O&M) CR Smt. Balbir Kaur and others Smt. Balbir Kaur and others v. Sat Parkash Ghai Sat Parkash Ghai
Case Details
CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 1. Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 Date of Decision: CR-2775-2015 (O&M) CR Smt. Balbir Kaur and others Smt. Balbir Kaur and others ...Petitioners VERSUS Sat Parkash Ghai Sat Parkash Ghai 2. ...Respondent ...Respondent CR-2776-2015 (O&M) CR Smt. Radha Rani and ors. Smt. Radha Rani and ors. ...Petitioners VERSUS Sat Parkash Ghai Sat Parkash Ghai ...Respondent ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CORAM: HARKESH MANUJA Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Present: Mr.Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Present: Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Rupinder Kaur, Thind, Advocate & Ms.Rupinder Kaur, Thind, Advocate & Ms.Navdeep Kaur, Advocate Ms.Navdeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned two This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned two This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned two civil revisions as common question of facts are involved therein. For civil revisions as common question of facts are involved therein. For civil revisions as common question of facts are involved therein. For civil revisions as common question of facts are involved therein. For convenience, facts are being taken from CR-2775-2015. convenience, facts are being taken from CR convenience, facts are being taken from CR 2. By way of present Civil Revision, challenge has been laid By way of present Civil Revision, challenge has been laid By way of present Civil Revision, challenge has been laid to an order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller, to an order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller, to an order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller, to an order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Phagwara, whereby the prayer made Phagwara, whereby at the instance of petitioners/ the prayer made at the instance of petitioners/ s for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition preferred at tenants for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition preferred at s for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition preferred at s for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition preferred at SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [2] B of the instance of respondent/landlord having invoked Section 13-B of the instance of respondent/landlord having invoked Section 13 the instance of respondent/landlord having invoked Section 13 1949 the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short ‘1949 the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short Act’, has been rejected. Act’, has been rejected. 3. n petition came to be filed at the Briefly stating, an eviction petition came to be filed at the n petition came to be filed at the one instance of respondent/ landlord against petitioners/ tenants qua one instance of respondent/ landlord against petitioners/ tenants qua instance of respondent/ landlord against petitioners/ tenants qua shop situated in Old Dana Mandi, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, shop situated in Old Dana Mandi, Phagwara, District Kapurthal shop situated in Old Dana Mandi, Phagwara, District Kapurthal shop situated in Old Dana Mandi, Phagwara, District Kapurthal of the 1949 Act. Relevant paragraphs having invoked Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. Relevant paragraphs of the 1949 Act. Relevant paragraphs having invoked Section 13 No.1 and 2 of the aforesaid eviction petition are extracted hereunder:- No.1 and 2 of the aforesaid eviction petition are extracted hereunder: No.1 and 2 of the aforesaid eviction petition are extracted hereunder: No.1 and 2 of the aforesaid eviction petition are extracted hereunder: “1. That the petitioner purchased one shop double That the petitioner purchased one shop double That the petitioner purchased one shop double d consisting of three rooms on the storeyed consisting of three rooms on the d consisting of three rooms on the ground floor and the upper floor, situated in ground floor and the upper floor, situated in ground floor and the upper floor, situated in haraj Ganj(also known as Old Dana Mandi Maharaj Ganj(also known as Old Dana haraj Ganj(also known as Old Dana Mandi) from its previous owner Lala Bhag Ram Mandi) from its previous owner Lala Bhag Ram Mandi) from its previous owner Lala Bhag Ram Handa s/o Lala Gainda Mal, of Phagwara, vide Handa s/o Lala Gainda Mal, of Phagwara, vide Handa s/o Lala Gainda Mal, of Phagwara, vide Regd. sale deed dated 24.4.1965, Registered Regd. sale deed dated 24.4.1965, Registered Regd. sale deed dated 24.4.1965, Registered on 11.5.1965. The site plan of the shop is on 11.5.1965. The site plan of the shop is on 11.5.1965. The site plan of the shop is attached with the sale deed. Copy of the sale attached with the sale deed. Copy of the sale attached with the sale deed. Copy of the sale deed and site plan are attached herewith. The deed and site plan are attached herewith. The deed and site plan are attached herewith. The petitioner also purchased one other shop petitioner also purchased one other shop petitioner also purchased one other shop double storeyed consisting of three rooms on double storeyed consisting of three rooms on double storeyed consisting of three rooms on the ground floor and the upper floor, situated in the ground floor and the upper floor, situated in the ground floor and the upper floor, situated in Mandi Maharaj Gajj (also known as Old Dana Mandi Maharaj Gajj (also known as Old Dana Mandi Maharaj Gajj (also known as Old Dana ights stairs Mandi), Phagwara with common rights stairs Mandi), Phagwara with common r from its previous owner Sh. Mangat Ram s/o from its previous owner Sh. Mangat Ram s/o from its previous owner Sh. Mangat Ram s/o Hari Ram Handa, r/o Phagwara vide Regd, sale Hari Ram Handa, r/o Phagwara vide Regd, sale Hari Ram Handa, r/o Phagwara vide Regd, sale deed dt.14.7.1964, registered on 15.7.1964. deed dt.14.7.1964, registered on 15.7.1964. deed dt.14.7.1964, registered on 15.7.1964. The site plan is attached with the sale deed. The site plan is attached with the sale deed. The site plan is attached with the sale deed. The copy of sale deed and site plan are The copy of sale deed and site plan are The copy of sale deed and site plan are attached herewith. attached herewith. 2. at That at the demised shop was the demised shop was the demised shop was let out let out let out to to to SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [3] Sh.Purshotam Ram s/o Sh.Mohinder Singh Sh.Purshotam s/o Sh.Mohinder Singh- husband and father of the Respondents and the husband and father of the Respondents and the husband and father of the Respondents and the same is bounded as under: same is bounded as under: Property of Sat Parkash Petitioner: East: Property of Sat Parkash Petitioner: Property of Sat Parkash Petitioner: Shop of Balraj Maini: West: Shop of Balraj Maini: North: Street (Gali); North: Street South: Court-Yard of Mandi: situated in Mandi Maharaj Ganj (Old Dana situated in Mandi Maharaj Ganj (Old Dana situated in Mandi Maharaj Ganj (Old Dana 5- Mandi), Phagwara, vide Rent Note dated 3-5 Mandi), Phagwara, vide Rent Note dated 3 through Sh. Inderjit 1975, for Eleven months-through Sh. Inderjit 1975, for Eleven months Attorney of the petitioner. It was agreed by Ghai-Attorney of the petitioner. It was agreed by Attorney of the petitioner. It was agreed by the tenant that the shop has been let out for the tenant that the shop has been let out for the tenant that the shop has been let out for for Eleven Months on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- for Eleven Months on a monthly rent doing the business of Aarth. The rent was doing the business of Aarth. The rent was doing the business of Aarth. The rent was agreed to be paid in advance against receipt. agreed to be paid in advance against receipt. agreed to be paid in advance against receipt. The electricity charges were to be borne by the The electricity charges were to be borne by the The electricity charges were to be borne by the
Legal Reasoning
tenant. All the terms settled between the parties tenant. All the terms settled between the parties tenant. All the terms settled between the parties were duly were duly incorporated incorporated in in note the Rent note the Rent nd since then, Purshotam Singh dt.3.5.1975 and since then, Purshotam Singh nd since then, Purshotam Singh became tenant under the petitioner and after his became tenant under the petitioner and after his became tenant under the petitioner and after his death, the Respondents. Copy of the Rent Note death, the Respondents. Copy of the Rent Note death, the Respondents. Copy of the Rent Note is attached herewith.” is attached herewith.” 4. Upon receipt of summons, petitioners/ tenants preferred Upon receipt of summons, petitioners/ tenants preferred Upon receipt of summons, petitioners/ tenants preferred 9 Act for seeking leave an application under Section 18 (4) of the 1949 Act for seeking leave an application under Section 18 (4) of the 194 an application under Section 18 (4) of the 194 . The relevant paragraphs No.8 to 10 to contest the eviction petiton. The relevant paragraphs No.8 to 10 . The relevant paragraphs No.8 to 10 to contest thereof, are extracted hereunder:- thereof, are extracted hereunder: “8. Resident Indian That the petitioner is not a Non-Resident Indian That the petitioner is not a Non as defined under the EPURR Act. The petitioner as defined under the EPURR Act. The petitioner as defined under the EPURR Act. The petitioner tralia and is living is permanent resident of Australia and is living is permanent resident of Aus there along with his family for the last forty there along with his family for the last forty there along with his family for the last forty SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [4] years and never visited India. He and his family years and never visited India. He and his family years and never visited India. He and his family are well settled there. are well settled there. 9. That the petitioner has got no locus standi to file That the petitioner has got no locus standi to file That the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the application. He is well settled in Australia. the application. He is well settled in Australia. the application. He is well settled in Australia. shift to India. He has no bonafide He cannot shift to India. He has no bonafide shift to India. He has no bonafide The petition is malafide. need. The petition is malafide. That it is pertinent to mention here that the 10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the That it is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has mentioned two sale deeds in the applicant has mentioned two sale deeds in the applicant has mentioned two sale deeds in the petition one is dated 11.05.1965 pertaining to a petition one is dated 11.05.1965 pertaining to a petition one is dated 11.05.1965 pertaining to a ms shop double storeyed consisting of three rooms shop double storeyed consisting of three roo on ground floor and upper floor purchased from on ground floor and upper floor purchased from on ground floor and upper floor purchased from Sh. Bhag Ram Handa. Similarly, second sale Sh. Bhag Ram Handa. Similarly, second sale Sh. Bhag Ram Handa. Similarly, second sale deed is dated 14.07.1965 pertaining to a shop deed is dated 14.07.1965 pertaining to a shop deed is dated 14.07.1965 pertaining to a shop purchased from Mangat Ram. The fact remains purchased from Mangat Ram. The fact remains purchased from Mangat Ram. The fact remains that this extra ordinary powers of ejectment that this extra ordinary powers of ejectment that this extra ordinary powers of ejectment B of East have been given under Section 13-B of East have been given under Sectio Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act provided the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act provided the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act provided the said right can be asserted only once by the said right can be asserted only once by the said right can be asserted only once by the tenant and that too to one building only once tenant and that too to one building only once tenant and that too to one building only once during his lifetime, but in the present case, the during his lifetime, but in the present case, the during his lifetime, but in the present case, the facts clearly show that the applicant purchased facts clearly show that the applicant purchased facts clearly show that the applicant purchased stinct and separate shops by two distinct and separate shops by stinct and separate shops by two two two separate sale deeds from two distinct owners. separate sale deeds from two distinct owners. separate sale deeds from two distinct owners. So this special relief cannot be entertained for So this special relief cannot be entertained for So this special relief cannot be entertained for two separate and distinct units as stated above two separate and distinct units as stated above two separate and distinct units as stated above and the ejectment application is liable to be and the ejectment application is liable to be and the ejectment application is liable to be der Section dismissed. The right so granted under Section dismissed. The right so granted un B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is available to one building (unit) and only Act is available to one building (unit) and only Act is available to one building (unit) and only once in the lifetime of NRI Landlord/Owner.” once in the lifetime of NRI Landlord/Owner.” 5. Reply to the aforesaid application was filed on behalf of Reply to the aforesaid application was filed on behalf of Reply to the aforesaid application was filed on behalf of erting the grounds taken in the respondent/ landlord thereby controverting the grounds taken in the respondent/ landlord thereby controv the respondent/ landlord thereby controv SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [5] the application for leave to contest. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the reply the application for leave to contest. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the reply the application for leave to contest. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the reply the application for leave to contest. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the reply submitted by the respondent/ landlord are extracted hereunder:- submitted by the respondent/ landlord submitted by the respondent/ landlord “8. That para No.8 of the application is not That para No.8 of the application is not That para No.8 of the application is not admitted, hence denied. The petitioner is admitted, hence denied. The petitioner is admitted, hence denied. The petitioner is Resident Indian as defined under a Non-Resident Indian as defined under Resident Indian as defined under the Rent Act. The petitioner very often the Rent Act. The petitioner very often the Rent Act. The petitioner very often visits India to meet his brothers and other visits India to meet his brothers and other visits India to meet his brothers and other family members. family members. 9. That para No.9 of the application is not That para No.9 of the application is not That para No.9 of the application is not admitted, hence denied. The petitioner admitted, hence denied. The petitioner admitted, hence denied. The petitioner ition has got the locus standi to file the petition has got the locus standi to file the pet for ejectment. The petitioner is requiring for ejectment. The petitioner is requiring for ejectment. The petitioner is requiring the premises for his bonafide need and the premises for his bonafide need and the premises for his bonafide need and the petition is not based on malafide. the petition is not based on malafide. That para No.10 of the application is not 10. That para No.10 of the application is not That para No.10 of the application is not both the admitted, hence denied. The both the admitted, hence denied. The shops are contiguous to each other, shops are contiguous to each other, shops are contiguous to each other, urchased vide two sale deeds although purchased vide two sale deeds although p and it is one unit and part of one building, and it is one unit and part of one building, and it is one unit and part of one building, therefore, petitioner can file ejectment therefore, petitioner can file ejectment therefore, petitioner can file ejectment petition under the special provisions of petition under the special provisions of petition under the special provisions of Rent Act.” Rent Act.” 6. .2015 Learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 16.02.2015 Learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 16.0 for grant of leave to contest filed at the dismissed the application for grant of leave to contest filed at the for grant of leave to contest filed at the dismissed the application instance of petitioners/ tenants, hence the present revision petition(s). instance of petitioners/ tenants, hence the present revision petition(s). instance of petitioners/ tenants, hence the present revision petition(s). instance of petitioners/ tenants, hence the present revision petition(s). 7. order, learned Senior Impugning the aforementioned order, learned Senior Impugning the aforementioned on behalf of the petitioners/ tenants submits that counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/ tenants submits that on behalf of the petitioners/ tenants submits that counsel B of the 1949 Act, an NRI landlord has right to under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, an NRI landlord has right to B of the 1949 Act, an NRI landlord has right to under Section 1 . Learned counsel seek preferential ejectment qua one building only. Learned counsel seek preferential ejectment qua one building only seek preferential ejectment qua one building only SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [6] in the present case, from the perusal of the eviction submits that in the present case, from the perusal of the eviction in the present case, from the perusal of the eviction submits that besides the and the other records it was established that besides the and the other records it was established that petition and the other records it was established that one tion been sought qua the demised shop/ building in question; one tion been sought qua the demised eviction been sought qua the demised other eviction petition was preferred at the instance of respondent/ other eviction petition was preferred at the instance of respondent/ other eviction petition was preferred at the instance of respondent/ other eviction petition was preferred at the instance of respondent/
Legal Reasoning
landlord qua another/ abutting building against Smt. Radha Rani landlord qua another/ abutting building against Smt. Radha Rani landlord qua another/ abutting building against Smt. Radha Rani landlord qua another/ abutting building against Smt. Radha Rani question and through her LRs. He also points out that the building in question and through her LRs. He also points out that the building through her LRs. He also points out that the building the adjoining building were both purchased by the respondent/ adjoining building were both purchased by the respondent/ building were both purchased by the respondent/ and landlord vide two separate sale deeds from two different owners and landlord vide two separate sale deeds from two different owners landlord vide two separate sale deeds from two different owners as such two separate eviction petitions regarding abovementioned as such two separate eviction petitions regarding abovementioned as such two separate eviction petitions regarding abovementioned as such two separate eviction petitions regarding abovementioned der the provisions of two different buildings were not maintainable under the provisions of two different buildings were not maintainable un two different buildings were not maintainable un Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. Section 13 7.1 Learned Senior counsel also points out that there was Learned Senior counsel also points out that there was Learned Senior counsel also points out that there was active concealment on the part of respondent/ landlord in his active concealment on the part of respondent/ landlord in his active concealment on the part of respondent/ landlord in his active concealment on the part of respondent/ landlord in his owner in a property ejectment petition as the factum of he being a co-owner in a property ejectment petition as the factum of he being a co ejectment petition as the factum of he being a co joint with his other brothers, situated within the same joint with his other brothers, situated within the same urban estate urban estate i.e. Phagwara was never disclosed in the present eviction petition Phagwara was never disclosed in Phagwara was never disclosed in petition. even an eviction petition qua Learned Senior counsel contents that even an eviction petition qua Learned Senior counsel contents that Learned Senior counsel contents that agwara was filed the said joint property situated at Railway Road, Phagwara was filed the said joint property situated at Railway Road, Ph the said joint property situated at Railway Road, Ph at the instance of the real brother of the respondent/ landlord and the at the instance of the real brother of the respondent/ landlord and the at the instance of the real brother of the respondent/ landlord and the at the instance of the real brother of the respondent/ landlord and the same was pending consideration before the Court of competent same was pending consideration before the Court of competent same was pending consideration before the Court of competent same was pending consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction. He thus submits that once an eviction petition was jurisdiction. He thus submits that once an eviction petition was jurisdiction. He thus submits that once an eviction petition was jurisdiction. He thus submits that once an eviction petition was preferred at the instance of one of the preferred at the instance of of the respondent/ one of the co-owners of the respondent/ B of the 1949 Act in relation to a landlord having invoked Section 13-B of the 1949 Act in relation to a B of the 1949 Act in relation to a landlord the respondent/ landlord joint property and the same was pending, the respondent/ landlord joint property and the same was pending, joint property and the same was pending, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [7] was not having any right to seek eviction petition qua the property in was not having any right to seek eviction petition qua the property in was not having any right to seek eviction petition qua the property in was not having any right to seek eviction petition qua the property in provisions. In support, question/ demised premises under the same provisions. In support, question/ demised premises under the question/ demised premises under the he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. rted Bachan Kaur and others Vs. Kabal Singh and another, reported Bachan Kaur and others Vs. Kabal Singh and another Bachan Kaur and others Vs. Kabal Singh and another as 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 36 . Paragraphs 1 and 10 thereof being 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 368. Paragraphs 1 and 10 thereof being . Paragraphs 1 and 10 thereof being relevant are extracted hereunder:- relevant are extracted hereunder: “1. The following questions have been referred to The following questions have been referred to The following questions have been referred to Larger Bench vide order dated 29.9.2010 Larger Bench vide order dated 29.9.2010 Larger Bench vide order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge :- passed by the learned Single Judge : 1. Whether NRI/landlord who owner Whether NRI/landlord who is a co-owner with the other landlords, who do not have the with the other landlords, who do not have the with the other landlords, who do not have the same status, as that of NRI can maintain a same status, as that of NRI can maintain a same status, as that of NRI can maintain a petition for eviction of the tenant from the petition for eviction of the tenant from the petition for eviction of the tenant from the property jointly owned by all of them? property jointly owned by all of them? Whether the premises from which eviction is 2. Whether the premises from which eviction is Whether the premises from which eviction is B of the Act is to be sought under Section 13-B of the Act is to be sought under Section 13 let out by NRI/landlord or his duly authorized let out by NRI/landlord or his duly authorized let out by NRI/landlord or his duly authorized person acting on his behalf, or it can also person acting on his behalf, or it can also person acting on his behalf, or it can also owner include the letting by some other co- owner include the letting by some other co Interest in their own right or predecessor-in-Interest in their own right or predecessor and not under the authority of NRI/landlord?” and not under the authority of NRI/landlord?” and not under the authority of NRI/landlord?” d questions of law relates to the The said questions of law relates to the d questions of law relates to the B interpretation of the provisions of Section 13-B interpretation of the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Punjab Act), as inserted by 1949 (for short 'the Punjab Act), as inserted by 1949 (for short 'the Punjab Act), as inserted by the Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001… the Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001… owner is owner of each part of the 10. A co-owner is owner of each part of the owner is owner of each part of the property in husband like manner with other co- property in husband like manner with other co property in husband like manner with other co owners. He is entitled to seek ejectment of owners. He is entitled to seek ejectment of owners. He is entitled to seek ejectment of tenant in premises for benefit and for the benefit tenant in premises for benefit and for the benefit tenant in premises for benefit and for the benefit owners. Such right is subject to of all other co-owners. Such right is subject to owners. Such right is subject to SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [8] the remaining co- one exception that none of the remaining co one exception that none of owner objects to such action of the petitioning owner objects to such action of the petitioning owner objects to such action of the petitioning owner. If one of the owners happens to be a co-owner. If one of the owners happens to be a owner. If one of the owners happens to be a NRI, he does not relinquish his character and NRI, he does not relinquish his character and NRI, he does not relinquish his character and owner. Thus an order of status as that of co-owner. Thus an order of status as that of co owner will bind ejectment obtained by a NRI co-owner will bind ejectment obtained by a NRI co owners but will not entitle other NRI other co-owners but will not entitle other NRI owners but will not entitle other NRI owner to seek ejectment of tenant and/or an co-owner to seek ejectment of tenant owner to seek ejectment of tenant from another building either owned solely by from another building either owned solely by from another building either owned solely by owner or jointly with other persons as such co-owner or jointly with other persons as owner or jointly with other persons as owner in exercise of right of eviction granted co-owner in exercise of right of eviction granted owner in exercise of right of eviction granted of the Punjab Act. to an NRI by Section 13-B of the Punjab Act. to an NRI by Section 13 Thus in respect of first question of law, it is held Thus in respect of first question of law, it is held Thus in respect of first question of law, it is held that a co-owner, who is Non Resident Indian, owner, who is Non-Resident Indian, even when other co-owners are not Non even when other co owners are not Non- Resident Indians, can maintain a petition for Resident Indians, can maintain a petition for Resident Indians, can maintain a petition for ejectment for the benefit of all the co-owners.” ejectment for the benefit of all the co 7.2. Furthermore, learned Senior counsel also points out that Furthermore, learned Senior counsel also points out that Furthermore, learned Senior counsel also points out that a specific plea was raised in the application for leave to contest that a specific plea was raised in the application for leave to contest that a specific plea was raised in the application for leave to contest that a specific plea was raised in the application for leave to contest that the respondent/ tenant never visited India for the past 40 years and the respondent/ tenant never visited India for the past 40 years and the respondent/ tenant never visited India for the past 40 years and the respondent/ tenant never visited India for the past 40 years and thus, he could not have invoked the special provisions of Section 13 thus, he could not have invoked the special provisions o thus, he could not have invoked the special provisions o f Section 13- B of the 1949 Act; having no intent to return to India and settle here. B of the 1949 Act; having no intent to return to India and settle here. B of the 1949 Act; having no intent to return to India and settle here. B of the 1949 Act; having no intent to return to India and settle here. He points out that no document was placed on record by the He points out that no document was placed on record by the He points out that no document was placed on record by the He points out that no document was placed on record by the respondent/ landlord even to prima facie show that he ever visited respondent/ landlord even to prima facie show that he ever visited respondent/ landlord even to prima facie show that he ever visited respondent/ landlord even to prima facie show that he ever visited India in the past 40 years. In support India in the past 40 years. In the aforesaid submissions, support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners/ tenants placed reliance upon the learned counsel for the petitioners/ tenants placed reliance upon the learned counsel for the petitioners/ tenants placed reliance upon the learned counsel for the petitioners/ tenants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal , 2001 (1) RCR (Rent) 33 and paragraph 15 thereof being Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Rent) 33 and paragraph 15 thereof being , 2001 (1) RCR (Rent) 33 and paragraph 15 thereof being , 2001 (1) RCR (Rent) 33 and paragraph 15 thereof being SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [9] relevant is extracted hereunder:- relevant is extracted hereunder: “15. With this background, we now turn to the With this background, we now turn to the With this background, we now turn to the facts of the case in hand. It is clear from the facts of the case in hand. It is clear from the facts of the case in hand. It is clear from the reading of the order of the Addl. Rent reading of the order of the Addl. Rent reading of the order of the Addl. Rent Controller that he has taken pains to write Controller that he has taken pains to write Controller that he has taken pains to write an elaborate order as if he was writing an an elaborate order as if he was writing an an elaborate order as if he was writing an eviction order after a full-dressed trial of eviction order after a full petition; he has considered merits of the petition; he has considered merits of the petition; he has considered merits of the respective contentions at respective contentions at respective contentions at the stage of the stage of the stage of granting granting Section leave to defend under Section leave to defend under without keeping in mind the scope 25B(5) without keeping in mind the scope without keeping in mind the scope duty cast on of the provisions and statutory duty cast on of the provisions and statutory him. He exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him. He exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him. He exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him in refusing leave to defend to the him in refusing leave to defend to the him in refusing leave to defend to the appellant. It appears to us that he did not appellant. It appears to us that he did not appellant. It appears to us that he did not focus his attention to the scope and content focus his attention to the scope and content focus his attention to the scope and content of Section 25B(5) . Having regard to the Section 25B(5). Having regard to the facts stated and grounds raised in the facts stated and grounds raised in the facts stated and grounds raised in the affidavit filed by the appellant seeking leave affidavit filed by the appellant seeking leave affidavit filed by the appellant seeking leave to defend which we have already narrated to defend which we have already narrated to defend which we have already narrated above, it is not possible to take a view that above, it is not possible to take a view that above, it is not possible to take a view that no triable issue arose for consideration. no triable issue arose for consideration. no triable issue arose for consideration. n the affidavit of the The facts stated in the affidavit of the The facts stated i appellant appellant appellant in support of his application in support of his application in support of his application seeking leave to defend prima facie do seeking leave to defend prima facie do seeking leave to defend prima facie do SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775--2015 (O&M) & anr. [10] disclose that the respondent would be disclose that the respondent would be disclose that the respondent would be disentitled disentitled disentitled to obtain an order to obtain an order to obtain an order for for for the the the recovery of possession of the premises recovery of possession of the premises recovery of possession of the premises ther from the appellant particularly when other from the appellant particularly when o cases are pending between the parties and cases are pending between the parties and cases are pending between the parties and defence does not appear to be frivolous or defence does not appear to be frivolous or defence does not appear to be frivolous or untenable on the face of it. The Addl. Rent untenable on the face of it. The Addl. Rent untenable on the face of it. The Addl. Rent Controller Controller Controller has has has acted with material acted with material acted with material irregularity and committed a manifest error irregularity and committed a manifest error irregularity and committed a manifest error in accepting the case of the respondent- in accepting the case of the respondent in accepting the case of the respondent dlord when the facts were seriously landlord when the facts were seriously dlord when the facts were seriously disputed and the correctness or otherwise disputed and the correctness or otherwise disputed and the correctness or otherwise of the documents required to be examined. of the documents required to be examined. of the documents required to be examined. Whether the suit premises was used for Whether the suit premises was used for Whether the suit premises was used for commercial purposes from residential-cum-commercial purposes from residential the inception and whether the respondent the inception and whether the respondent the inception and whether the respondent other members of the and his son and other members of the and his son and fortably family are permanently and comfortably family are permanently and co settled in U.K. and whether the requirement settled in U.K. and whether the requirement settled in U.K. and whether the requirement of the premises by the respondent was of the premises by the respondent was of the premises by the respondent was bona fide, are the matters which could not bona fide, are the matters which could not bona fide, are the matters which could not be adjudicated as has been done by the be adjudicated as has been done by the be adjudicated as has been done by the Addl. Rent Controller at Addl. Rent Controller at age of the stage of the st dealing with the application to grant leave dealing with the application to grant leave dealing with the application to grant leave to defend. In this view of the matter, we to defend. In this view of the matter, we to defend. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to say that the order have no hesitation to say that the order have no hesitation to say that the order SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [11] passed by passed by passed by the Addl. Rent Controller the Addl. Rent Controller the Addl. Rent Controller refusing leave to defend to the appellant refusing leave to defend to the appellant refusing leave to defend to the appellant cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, the cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, the cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, the Court also has affirmed it without High Court also has affirmed it without Court also has affirmed it without taking into consideration the correct legal taking into consideration the correct legal taking into consideration the correct legal position indicated above having regard to position indicated above having regard to position indicated above having regard to the facts of the case. We are of the view the facts of the case. We are of the view the facts of the case. We are of the view that the Addl. Rent Controller and the High that the Addl. Rent Controller and the High that the Addl. Rent Controller and the High Court both were in error in refusing to grant Court both were in error in refusing to grant Court both were in error in refusing to grant ave leave ave to to to the appellant the appellant the appellant to contest to contest to contest the the the eviction petition.” eviction petition. 7.3. Learned Senior counsel also points out that the learned Learned Senior counsel also points out that the learned Learned Senior counsel also points out that the learned suited the petitioners/ tenants while Rent Controller wrongly non-suited the petitioners/ tenants while suited the petitioners/ tenants while Rent Controller wrongly non recording that no material in the shape of any report from the recording that no material in the shape of any report from the recording that no material in the shape of any report from the recording that no material in the shape of any report from the Architect or any site plan placed on record to establish that the t or any site plan was placed on record to establish that the placed on record to establish that the subject matter of two eviction petitions were in fact two shops being subject matter of two eviction petitions were in fact subject matter of two eviction petitions were in fact two shops two separate buildings/ units. Learned Senior counsel two separate buildings/ units . Learned Senior counsel submits that submits that no opportunity was ever afforded to the petitioners/ tena opportunity was nts to establish afforded to the petitioners/ tenants to establish the said plea on record and for the said purpose only leave to contest plea on record and for the said purpose only leave to contest and for the said purpose only leave to contest . He points out that statutorily application was required to be granted. He points out that statutorily application . He points out that statutorily application was required to be granted for leave to contest under Section 18 (4) of the 1949 Act needs to be for leave to contest under Section 18 (4) of the 1949 Act needs to be for leave to contest under Section 18 (4) of the 1949 Act needs to be for leave to contest under Section 18 (4) of the 1949 Act needs to be of 15 days from the date of service of notice of filed in a short span of 15 days from the date of service of notice of of 15 days from the date of service of notice of filed in a short the eviction petition and in such a short period, it is impracticable for a the eviction petition and in such a short period, it is impracticable for a the eviction petition and in such a short period, it is impracticable for a the eviction petition and in such a short period, it is impracticable for a raised in tenant to place on record material in support of the grounds raised in tenant to place on record material in support of the tenant to place on record material in support of the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [12] the affidavit/ affidavit/application for grant of leave to contest and in such application for grant of leave to contest and in such circumstances, the learned Rent Controller was required to grant circumstances, the learned Rent Controller was required to grant circumstances, the learned Rent Controller was required to grant circumstances, the learned Rent Controller was required to grant sufficient opportunity to the petitioners/ tenants sufficient opportunity to in order to establish the petitioners/ tenants in order to establish the grounds. the grounds In view of the above, learned Senior counsel appearing In view of the above, learned Senior counsel appearing In view of the above, learned Senior counsel appearing the learned Rent Controller for the petitioners/ tenants submits that the learned Rent Controller for the petitioners/ tenants submits that for the petitioners/ tenants submits that went wrong while declining the prayer made on behalf of the went wrong while declining the prayer made on behalf of the went wrong while declining the prayer made on behalf of the went wrong while declining the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners/ tenants having rejected the application for leave to petitioners/ tenants having rejected the application for leave to petitioners/ tenants having rejected the application for leave to petitioners/ tenants having rejected the application for leave to contest and the impugned order was thus liable to be set aside. contest and the impugned order was thus liable to be set aside. contest and the impugned order was thus liable to be set aside. 8. l appearing on behalf On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf On the other hand, learned counse of respondent/ landlord submits that a specific plea was raised in of respondent/ landlord submits that a specific plea was raised in of respondent/ landlord submits that a specific plea was raised in of respondent/ landlord submits that a specific plea was raised in reply to the application filed for grant of leave to contest and it was reply to the application filed for grant of leave to contest and it was reply to the application filed for grant of leave to contest and it was reply to the application filed for grant of leave to contest and it was vide two pleaded that although two contiguous shops were purchased vide two pleaded that although two contiguous shops were purchased pleaded that although two contiguous shops were purchased separate sale deeds but the same were part of one unit/ building separate She same were part of one unit/ building. She site plan to this effect was appended also points out that even a site plan to this effect was appended site plan to this effect was appended also points out that even along with the eviction petition so as to show that the two shops along with the eviction petition so as to show that the two shops along with the eviction petition so as to show that the two shops along with the eviction petition so as to show that the two shops formed part of one unit/ building only. Learned counsel further formed part of one unit/ building only. Learned counsel further formed part of one unit/ building only. Learned counsel further formed part of one unit/ building only. Learned counsel further o specific and categoric plea with respect to any contends that no specific and categoric plea with respect to any o specific and categoric plea with respect to any contends eviction petition been preferred at the instance of brother of the eviction petition been preferred at the instance of brother of the eviction petition been preferred at the instance of brother of the eviction petition been preferred at the instance of brother of the respondent/ landlord being co-owner respondent/ landlord being co the property situated at owner qua the property situated at Railway Road, Phagwara, was raised in the application for leave to Railway Road, Phagwara, was raised in the application for leave to Railway Road, Phagwara, was raised in the application for leave to Railway Road, Phagwara, was raised in the application for leave to . She points out that the decision passed in the case of contest. She points out that the decision passed in the case of . She points out that the decision passed in the case of . She points out that the decision passed in the case of was not applicable to the facts and Bachan Kaur’s (supra) was not applicable to the facts and was not applicable to the facts and Bachan Kaur’s circumstances of the present case as the question framed and circumstances of the present case as the question framed and circumstances of the present case as the question framed and circumstances of the present case as the question framed and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [13] answered therein was totally different. Learned counsel also points answered therein was totally different. Learned counsel also points answered therein was totally different. Learned counsel also points answered therein was totally different. Learned counsel also points the reply to the application for grant of leave to contest, it out that in the reply to the application for grant of leave to contest, it the reply to the application for grant of leave to contest, it out that in was specifically and categorically pleaded that the respondent/ was specifically and categorically pleaded that the respondent/ was specifically and categorically pleaded that the respondent/ was specifically and categorically pleaded that the respondent/ landlord has been visiting India in the past few years so as to meet landlord has been visiting India in the past few years so as to meet landlord has been visiting India in the past few years so as to meet landlord has been visiting India in the past few years so as to meet
Decision
e impugned his friends and relatives and thus in view of the above, the impugned his friends and relatives and thus in view of the above, th his friends and relatives and thus in view of the above, th order calls for no interference. order calls for no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. through the paper book. 10. A review of the record reveals that in two eviction A review of the record reveals that in two eviction A review of the record reveals that in two eviction petitions, the respondent/landlord sought eviction orders against two petitions, the respondent/landlord sought eviction orders against two petitions, the respondent/landlord sought eviction orders against two petitions, the respondent/landlord sought eviction orders against two ifferent set of tenants regarding two separate shops purchased by different set of tenants regarding two separate shops purchased by ifferent set of tenants regarding two separate shops purchased by ifferent set of tenants regarding two separate shops purchased by him through two sale deeds from different vendors. However, a him through two sale deeds from different vendors. However, a him through two sale deeds from different vendors. However, a him through two sale deeds from different vendors. However, a review of the site plan appended to the present eviction petition review of the site plan appended to the present eviction petition review of the site plan appended to the present eviction petition review of the site plan appended to the present eviction petition of the shows that both shops are part of one unit/building. A review of the shows that both shops are part of one unit/building. A review shows that both shops are part of one unit/building. A review application filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for leave to application filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for leave to application filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for leave to application filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants for leave to contest shows that the site plan appended to the eviction petition has contest shows that the site plan appended to the eviction petition has contest shows that the site plan appended to the eviction petition has contest shows that the site plan appended to the eviction petition has not been disputed or controverted. The only dispute raised on behalf not been disputed or controverted. The only dispute raised on behalf not been disputed or controverted. The only dispute raised on behalf not been disputed or controverted. The only dispute raised on behalf o separate shops were of the petitioners/tenants is that the two separate shops were of the petitioners/tenants is that the tw of the petitioners/tenants is that the tw purchased through two different sale deeds from two distinct owners. purchased through two different sale deeds from two distinct owners. purchased through two different sale deeds from two distinct owners. purchased through two different sale deeds from two distinct owners. However, this does not question the validity of the site plan attached However, this does not question the validity of the site plan attached However, this does not question the validity of the site plan attached However, this does not question the validity of the site plan attached to to to to the eviction petition, which clearly the eviction petition, which clearly the eviction petition, which clearly the eviction petition, which clearly indicates indicates indicates indicates that both that both that both that both eviction petitions are part of one shops/tenanted premises in the two eviction petitions are part of one eviction petitions are part of one shops/tenanted premises in the two Therefore, single unit/building. Therefore, Therefore, single unit/building. the case set up by the case set up by the case set up by the the the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [14] petitioners/tenants that the two shops subject to two eviction petitions petitioners/tenants that the two shops subject to two eviction petitions petitioners/tenants that the two shops subject to two eviction petitions petitioners/tenants that the two shops subject to two eviction petitions not made out. are in fact two separate buildings/units is prima facie not made out. are in fact two separate buildings/units is are in fact two separate buildings/units is 11. two eviction petitions at the instance of Furthermore, the two eviction petitions at the instance of two eviction petitions at the instance of B of the respondent/landlord were filed in 2012, invoking Section 13-B of the respondent/landlord were filed in 2012, invoking Section 13 the respondent/landlord were filed in 2012, invoking Section 13 the 1949 Act, claiming himself to be an NRI landlord. However, one of the 1949 Act, claiming himself to be an NRI landlord. However, one of the 1949 Act, claiming himself to be an NRI landlord. However, one of the 1949 Act, claiming himself to be an NRI landlord. However, one of the brothers of the respondent/landlord, Rattan Chand Ghai, who was the brothers of the respondent/landlord, Rattan Chand Ghai, who was the brothers of the respondent/landlord, Rattan Chand Ghai, who was the brothers of the respondent/landlord, Rattan Chand Ghai, who was situated at Railway wner, sought eviction from a premise situated at Railway wner, sought eviction from a premise a co-owner, sought eviction from a premise Road, Phagwara in October 2014, much after the filing of the eviction Road, Phagwara in October 2014, much after the filing of the eviction Road, Phagwara in October 2014, much after the filing of the eviction Road, Phagwara in October 2014, much after the filing of the eviction petition in the present case. petition in the present case. 11.1 Furthermore, the ejectment petition preferred at the Furthermore, the ejectment petition preferred at the Furthermore, the ejectment petition preferred at the owner of instance of the brother of the landlord/tenant, who was a co-owner of instance of the brother of the landlord instance of the brother of the landlord another property, claiming to be an NRI/landlord, would not debar the another property, claiming to be an NRI/landlord, would not debar the another property, claiming to be an NRI/landlord, would not debar the another property, claiming to be an NRI/landlord, would not debar the individual and independent right vested with the respondent/landlord individual and independent right vested with the respondent/landlord individual and independent right vested with the respondent/landlord individual and independent right vested with the respondent/landlord to seek eviction in the building in question, which was solely and to seek eviction in the building in question, which was solely and to seek eviction in the building in question, which was solely and to seek eviction in the building in question, which was solely and exclusively owned by him. exclusively owned b 11.2 It is noteworthy that the other eviction petition, filed at the It is noteworthy that the other eviction petition, filed at the It is noteworthy that the other eviction petition, filed at the instance of one of the brothers of the respondent/landlord, was jointly instance of one of the brothers of the respondent/landlord, was jointly instance of one of the brothers of the respondent/landlord, was jointly instance of one of the brothers of the respondent/landlord, was jointly owned by approximately seven persons as mentioned in the eviction owned by approximately seven persons as mentioned in the eviction owned by approximately seven persons as mentioned in the eviction owned by approximately seven persons as mentioned in the eviction w by the Division Bench of this petition. Therefore, the exposition of law by the Division Bench of this petition. Therefore, the exposition of la petition. Therefore, the exposition of la (supra) is not applicable to the facts Court in Bachan Kaur’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts (supra) is not applicable to the facts Court in and circumstances of the present case. The question framed and and circumstances of the present case. The question framed and and circumstances of the present case. The question framed and and circumstances of the present case. The question framed and answered by the Division Bench was entirely different as evident from answered by the Division Bench was entirely different as evident from answered by the Division Bench was entirely different as evident from answered by the Division Bench was entirely different as evident from orementioned judgment which is extracted in paras 1 and 10 of the aforementioned judgment which is extracted in orementioned judgment which is extracted in paras 1 and 10 of the af SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [15] the preceding paragraph. In Bachan Kaur’s the preceding paragraph. In case (supra), the Bachan Kaur’s case (supra), the question framed to be answered was never about the adjudication of question framed to be answered was never about the adjudication of question framed to be answered was never about the adjudication of question framed to be answered was never about the adjudication of comparative rights of an NRI regarding a tenanted building that was comparative rights of an NRI regarding a tenanted building that was comparative rights of an NRI regarding a tenanted building that was comparative rights of an NRI regarding a tenanted building that was wned by them, in contrast to a building/unit that was not exclusively owned by them, in contrast to a building/unit that was wned by them, in contrast to a building/unit that was not exclusively o jointly owned with others. jointly owned with others. 11.3 Furthermore, in the opinion of this Court, the contention Furthermore, in the opinion of this Court, the contention Furthermore, in the opinion of this Court, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners/tenants that there was concealment raised on behalf of the petitioners/tenants that there was concealment raised on behalf of the petitioners/tenants that there was concealment raised on behalf of the petitioners/tenants that there was concealment on the part of the respondent/landlord who failed to disclose other on the part of the respondent/landlord who failed to disclose other on the part of the respondent/landlord who failed to disclose other on the part of the respondent/landlord who failed to disclose other out. properties situated at Railway Road, Phagwara, was not made out. properties situated at Railway Road, Phagwara, was not made properties situated at Railway Road, Phagwara, was not made The property in question was his exclusive ownership. Moreover, the The property in question was his exclusive ownership. Moreover, the The property in question was his exclusive ownership. Moreover, the The property in question was his exclusive ownership. Moreover, the B of the Act does not mandate the language used in Section 13-B of the Act does not mandate the B of the Act does not mandate the language used in Section 13 landlord to disclose other buildings owned by him/her in an eviction landlord to disclose other buildings owned by him/her in an eviction landlord to disclose other buildings owned by him/her in an eviction landlord to disclose other buildings owned by him/her in an eviction therwise, the same petition filed under this special provision. Even otherwise, the same petition filed under this special provision. Even o petition filed under this special provision. Even o cannot be read into the provision as the right available under Section cannot be read into the provision as the right available under Section cannot be read into the provision as the right available under Section cannot be read into the provision as the right available under Section B of the 1949 Act is for one building/unit as per the landlord’s 13-B of the 1949 Act is for one building/unit as per the landlord’s B of the 1949 Act is for one building/unit as per the landlord’s B of the 1949 Act is for one building/unit as per the landlord’s choice, making the ownership of other buildings irrelevant. The choice, making the ownership of other buildings irrelevant. The choice, making the ownership of other buildings irrelevant. The choice, making the ownership of other buildings irrelevant. The e of other properties has been requirement of mandatory disclosure of other properties has been e of other properties has been requirement of mandatory disclosur incorporated only in Section 13 (3) of the 1949 Act incorporated only in , which deals with (3) of the 1949 Act, which deals with the personal requirement of a resident Indian. This requirement is not the personal requirement of a resident Indian. This requirement is not the personal requirement of a resident Indian. This requirement is not the personal requirement of a resident Indian. This requirement is not applicable when seeking eviction under any other ground or under applicable when seeking eviction under any other ground or under applicable when seeking eviction under any other ground or under applicable when seeking eviction under any other ground or under Section 13 B, which is a special right upon NRI. Therefore, there is no ection 13 B, which is a special right upon NRI. Therefore, there is no is a special right upon NRI. Therefore, there is no requirement for a landlord filing an ejectment application under requirement for a landlord filing an ejectment application under requirement for a landlord filing an ejectment application under requirement for a landlord filing an ejectment application under Section 13 Act to disclose that he is in possession of 13-B of the 1949 Act to disclose that he is in possession of Act to disclose that he is in possession of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [16] premises is other properties within the urban area where the demised premises is other properties within the urban area where the demise other properties within the urban area where the demise situated. If that was the intention of the legislature, it would have been situated. If that was the intention of the legislature, it would have been situated. If that was the intention of the legislature, it would have been situated. If that was the intention of the legislature, it would have been mentioned in Section 13-B as well as in mentioned in 1949 B as well as in Section 13(3) of the 1949 Act. The only requirement is that the landlord should be an NRI, the Act. The only requirement is that the landlord should be an NRI, the Act. The only requirement is that the landlord should be an NRI, the Act. The only requirement is that the landlord should be an NRI, the owner of the demised premises for the last fiv owner of the demise e years, and in the premises for the last five years, and in the petition, he requires the premises for his own use and occupation, or petition, he requires the premises for his own use and occupation, or petition, he requires the premises for his own use and occupation, or petition, he requires the premises for his own use and occupation, or for anyone living and dependent upon him. for anyone living and dependent upon him. for anyone living and dependent upon him. 12. The contention raised by the petitioners/tenants that the The contention raised by the petitioners/tenants that the The contention raised by the petitioners/tenants that the B of the 1949 Act were not made out ingredients of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act were not made out B of the 1949 Act were not made out ingredients of Section 13 because the respondent/landlord had no intention of returning to India because the respondent/landlord had no intention of returning to India because the respondent/landlord had no intention of returning to India because the respondent/landlord had no intention of returning to India is not valid against the respondent/landlord. A review of the relevant is not valid against the respondent/landlord. A review of the relevant is not valid against the respondent/landlord. A review of the relevant is not valid against the respondent/landlord. A review of the relevant portion of the respondent/landlord’s passport, which has been portion of the respondent/landlord’s passport, which has been portion of the respondent/landlord’s passport, which has been portion of the respondent/landlord’s passport, which has been at the immigration attached to the eviction petition, clearly shows that the immigration attached to the eviction petition, clearly shows th attached to the eviction petition, clearly shows th department stamped it with the Indian Emblem during the past 10- department stamped it with the Indian department stamped it with the Indian -15 years. Therefore, the petitioners’/tenants’ contention was entirely years. Therefore, the petitioners’/tenants’ contention was entirely years. Therefore, the petitioners’/tenants’ contention was entirely years. Therefore, the petitioners’/tenants’ contention was entirely misconceived and not supported by the facts and circumstances of misconceived and not supported by the facts and circumstances of misconceived and not supported by the facts and circumstances of misconceived and not supported by the facts and circumstances of of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this case. Consequently, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this case. Consequently, the judgment this case. Consequently, the judgment (supra), cited by the learned Senior Counsel Inderjeet Kaur’s case (supra), cited by the learned Senior Counsel (supra), cited by the learned Senior Counsel Inderjeet Kaur’s case for the petitioner, does not apply to the facts of this case. Moreover, it for the petitioner, does not apply to the facts of this case. Moreover, it for the petitioner, does not apply to the facts of this case. Moreover, it for the petitioner, does not apply to the facts of this case. Moreover, it was not even necessary for an NRI to permanently return to and was not even necessary for an NRI to permanently return to and was not even necessary for an NRI to permanently return to and was not even necessary for an NRI to permanently return to and settle in India to avail the benefits of the provisions of Section 13 settle in India to av B of ail the benefits of the provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act during the pendency of such an eviction petition. the 1949 Act during the pendency of such an eviction petition. the 1949 Act during the pendency of such an eviction petition. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [17] 13. Furthermore, the grounds raised by the petitioners/ Furthermore, the grounds raised by the petitioners/ Furthermore, the grounds raised by the petitioners/ tenants in their affidavit/application for leave to contest were capable tenants in their affidavit/application for leave to contest were capable tenants in their affidavit/application for leave to contest were capable tenants in their affidavit/application for leave to contest were capable of being adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller. The pleadings and of being adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller. The pleadings and of being adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller. The pleadings and of being adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller. The pleadings and the material available on record, including the eviction petition, the material available on record, including the eviction petition, the material available on record, including the eviction petition, the material available on record, including the eviction petition, were sufficient. No application for leave to contest, and its reply, were sufficient. No application for leave to contest, and its reply, application for leave to contest, and its reply, further evidence was required in this regard. The Rent Controller has further evidence was required in this regard. The Rent Controller has further evidence was required in this regard. The Rent Controller has further evidence was required in this regard. The Rent Controller has the power to grant leave to contest. The petition filed under the power to grant leave to contest. The petition filed under the power to grant leave to contest. The petition filed under the power to grant leave to contest. The petition filed under Section 13 Act must specify the grounds for contest. ection 13-B of the 1949 Act must specify the grounds for contest. Act must specify the grounds for contest. ave to contest only if they present The tenants would be entitled to leave to contest only if they present ave to contest only if they present The tenant a strong case to challenge those grounds. The enquiry would be a strong case to challenge those grounds. The enquiry would be a strong case to challenge those grounds. The enquiry would be a strong case to challenge those grounds. The enquiry would be B, and the Rent Controller would consider the confined to Section 13-B, and the Rent Controller would consider the B, and the Rent Controller would consider the confined to The landlord’s requirement to be genuine respect due to the landlord. The landlord’s requirement to be genuine The landlord’s requirement to be genuine respect due to the landlord. and bona fide pen and subject to the tenant’s right to revert, bona fide is open and subject to the tenant’s right to revert, pen and subject to the tenant’s right to revert, present strong and cogent evidence. The tenant would provided to present strong and cogent evidence. The tenant would present strong and cogent evidence. The tenant would provided have to be a heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that the landlord’s have to be a heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that the landlord’s have to be a heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that the landlord’s have to be a heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that the landlord’s requirement is not genuine. To prove such a fact, the tenant would be requirement is not genuine. To prove such a fact, the tenant would be requirement is not genuine. To prove such a fact, the tenant would be requirement is not genuine. To prove such a fact, the tenant would be quired to provide all the facts and circumstances supported by required to provide all the facts and circumstances supported by quired to provide all the facts and circumstances supported by quired to provide all the facts and circumstances supported by evidence to support his plea in the affidavit itself seeking document/ evidence to support his plea in the affidavit itself seeking evidence to support his plea in the affidavit itself seeking document assertion alone would not be sufficient leave to contest. The tenant’s assertion alone would not be sufficient assertion alone would not be sufficient leave to contest. The tenant ’s favour that is a to overturn the strong presumption in the landlord’s favour that is a to overturn the strong presumption in the landlord to overturn the strong presumption in the landlord requirement for the occupation of the premises to be real and requirement for the occupation of the premises to be real and requirement for the occupation of the premises to be real and requirement for the occupation of the premises to be real and genuine. In such circumstances, the prayer for leave to contest made genuine. In such circumstances, the prayer for leave to contest made genuine. In such circumstances, the prayer for leave to contest made genuine. In such circumstances, the prayer for leave to contest made tenants was rightly declined by the Rent Controller by the petitioners/ tenants was rightly declined by the Rent Controller tenants was rightly declined by the Rent Controller by the petitioners/ purpose, and object of the special while keeping in view the intent, purpose, and object of the special purpose, and object of the special while keeping in view the intent, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2775- -2015 (O&M) & anr. [18] B of the 1949 Act. No interference is provision under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. No interference is B of the 1949 Act. No interference is provision under called for in the present revision petitions, and they are, therefore, called for in the present revision petitions, and they are, therefore, called for in the present revision petitions, and they are, therefore, called for in the present revision petitions, and they are, therefore, dismissed by upholding the well-reasoned order dated 16 dismissed by upholding the well reasoned order dated 16.02.2015 by the Rent Controller, Phagwara. the Rent Controll 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. stand disposed of. .09.2025 16.09.2025 sanjay ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document