GURMEET SINGH Vs. WALIA BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 9.5.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur whereby the application of the Petitioners filed under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') for ejectment of the Respondents from the demised premises was dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner -Gurmeet Singh and Petitioner-Raghubir Singh are co-owners of the demised premises in equal shares. The positive pleaded case of the Petitioners was that Petitioner-Gurmeet Singh is a Non-Resident Indian (N.R.I.), who went abroad in 1991 and has since returned to India in December, 1999. It was averred that the Petitioners also jointly own some other property at Government College Road, Hoshiarpur where Petitioner No. 2 is carrying on the business of shuttering and building material; that Petitioner No. 1 also intends to start his business, but the property in possession of Petitioner No. 2 is insufficient for accommodating him; and that Petitioner No. 1, thus, requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation as Petitioner No. 2 has no objection in that regard. Apart from these facts and the facts which were required to be pleaded as per the requirements of Section 13B of the Act, it has been pleaded that matrimonial life of Petitioner No. 1 has been disrupted as his wife had committed suicide on 14.12.1999 and his three children were residing with Petitioner No. 2 in Hoshiarpur which has further precipitated the need of Petitioner No. 1 to settle down in the country. It has further been pleaded that Petitioner No. 1 is owner of the demised premises for the last five years and earlier, the same was owned by their father which devolved upon the Petitioners being successors after his death.

(3.) Upon notice, the Respondents appeared and filed their written statement as well as an application for leave to contest. They disputed the facts as pleaded by the Petitioners, i.e., the status of Petitioner No. 1 as N.R.I., his return to India, his personal necessity, as also his ownership of the demised premises. It was also pleaded that the Petitioners are having four other shops to their credit which are sufficient to take care of the need of Petitioner No. 1 and the personal necessity as expressed in the petition, therefore, did not arise at all.