ONKAR SINGH Vs. DILBAGH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 16.02.2010 whereby the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, has ordered his eviction from the demised premises on an application filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') by the respondents-landlords.

(2.) The facts arising out of which this instant revision petition has emerged are that eviction petition was filed by the respondents on the averments that respondent Charanjit Rai was the owner of the demised premises i.e.shop No. 2 as shown Red in the site plan which is a part of Building No. XXXIV-2224/1, Bassi Market, Joshi Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, whereas respondent Dilbagh Rai was the brother of Charanjit Rai and had let out the demised premises to the petitioner. The tenancy was oral and subsequently rent note was executed between the parties on 14.10.1992 and thus their existed the relationship of landlord and tenant. Respondents are NRIs and have returned to India and they required the entire property, of which the shop in dispute forms a part, for their own use and occupation as well as use of son of respondent No. 2. It was further stated that the climate of UK did not suit respondent No. 2 They got vacated their own residential house in Ludhiana and are residing there. Whole of the entire building of which the shop in dispute is a part, consists of eight shops. Shops No. 7 and 8 have been vacated by the tenants looking into the personal necessity of the respondents and the same have been demolished along with the rear portion. Separate petitions against the other tenants of shop No. 1,3,4,5 and 6 on the ground of personal necessity have been filed and are pending. It was further averred that they have no other residential property except the property mentioned above and that they have not vacated any such property in the urban area concerned and thus the petitioner was liable to be evicted.

(3.) Upon notice, petitioner appeared and contested the eviction petition. An application was filed for leave to contest which was declined by the Rent Controller, however, revision petition filed by the petitioner before this court was allowed.