SHARMA TRAVELS AND ORS Vs. PRITAM SINGH MALHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants-revisionists in all the five cases have filed separate revisions before this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for brevity 'the Act') challenging the order of the Rent Controller under Section 13-B of the Act. In C.R. No. 1202 of 2006, 1203 of 2006 and 1204 of 2006 impugned order is dated 19.11.2005 while in C.R. No. 1835 of 2008 impugned order is dated 25.1.2008 and in C.R. No. 3085 of 2008 impugned order is dated 20.3.2008. Since, in all the revision petitions landlord-respondent is the same and questions raised by learned Counsel for the revisionist(s) are same and identical, hence, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties appearing in all the revision petitions, I propose to decide all the revision petitions by the common judgment. For the purpose of deciding the lis involved, I propose to take facts of the case from C.R. No. 1202 of 2006.

(2.) Respondent-landlord/owner preferred a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the revisionist(s) from the portion of the first floor of building No. 916 situated near Narinder Cinema, G.T. Road, Jalandhar City with the contention that applicant is the owner of the building; the said building is a double storeyed building; respondents are occupying the portion of the said building which has been shown in the site plan attached with the application; applicant is of Indian origin but later on he had settled in England, hence, he is an NRI; applicant is holding the British Passport; applicant has been owner as well as landlord of the tenanted premises for the period of five years preceding the filing of the application; applicant returned to India and wants to live at Jalandhar; he intends to settle permanently at Jalandhar; he requires the premises in question for carrying on the business of readymade garments; he had been carrying on the business of readymade garments in England under the name and style "Malhis South Hall Leading Men's & Children Wear Store"; he requires tenanted portion for his own use and occupation to carry on the business of readymade garments.

(3.) Tenant sought leave of the Court to defend the petition for eviction which was allowed vide order dated 23.8.2002; in reply, respondent-tenant had admitted the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; petition of landlord was contested on the ground that landlord has been settled permanently in England and has adopted the British citizenship; petition for eviction has been filed with the motive of misusing the provision of Section 13-B of the Act to get the shop in question vacated for selling it for handsome price. It is further contended by the tenant that landlord has purchased the building only for commercial purpose and has invested the money earned in the foreign country for the purpose of selling the building on handsome price. The further case of tenant is that landlord has been permanently settled in England and he has no intention to return India.