SHAM LAL KHERA Vs. SUDERSHAN KUMAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, counsel for the respondent- caveator submits that possession of the demised premises in pursuance of the impugned order has already been taken and the instant revision petition has become infructuous. However, counsel for the respondent states that if impugned order is set aside, petitioner can claim restoration of demised premises. Be that as it may, this Court is deciding this petition on merits.

(2.) This is tenant's revision petition. Vide order dated 27.10.2010, application filed by the petitioner for grant of leave to defend the ejectment application filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act(in short, 'the Act') on behalf of the respondent was declined. By separate order of the even date, eviction order against the petitioner was also passed. In the instant revision petition, the aforesaid orders are under challenge before this Court.

(3.) The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 13-B of the Act making averments that he is a non-resident Indian in terms of the rent Act and owner of the demised premises since 2003 and wants to return to India to settle in his ancestral house i.e. House No. 146, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. It was further averred that the petitioner is in possession of second floor of the said house for the last many years as a tenant. He has not paid the rent since February 2009. He was requested to vacate the demised premises as the same was required for his personal use. The respondent has no residential house in Chandigarh or all over India. He requires the said house for own need and occupation. Since the petitioner has failed to vacate and hand over the demised premises, in the circumstances, the requirement of the respondent was urgent and he was entitled to an order of ejectment of the tenant from the tenanted premises under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act.