PADAM NABH & SONS Vs. YASH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants revision petition challenging the order dated 19.1.2010 of the Rent Controller, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) vide which, the petition filed under Sec. 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act") by the respondent-landlord has been allowed and the petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent-Yash Pal filed an ejectment petition under Sec. 13-B of the Act claiming himself to be specified landlord of the premises in C.R. No.1571 of 2010 question being a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). He had gone to Australia in March, 1996 and was holder of Australian passport. He returned from Australia on 4.2.2004. It was further averred that the respondent was a co-owner in the building in part of which the demised premises were located on the Southern side on ground floor along with his brother Pardeep Kumar who was also an NRI and was in Australia for the last about 15 years. Brij Lal father of the respondent had purchased the building vide sale deed dated 6.2.1989 registered on 7.2.1989. Said Brij Lal expired in the year 1991 and by way of inheritance, the building mentioned above was acquired by the respondent and his brother Pardeep Kumar in equal shares. The petitioners were statutory tenants in the tenanted portion initially under Sat Parkash son of Jaswant Rai, resident of Nawanshahr, the vendor of the property and after the purchase of property by father of the respondent, they became tenants under him and after his death, the respondent along with his brother became landlords of the petitioners. The respondent returned to India and required the tenanted premises for opening of a departmental store in the building. Except the said building, the respondent do not have any other building within the Municipal limits of Nawanshahr nor he has ever got vacated any such like building after coming into force of the Act. Thus, it was prayed that the ejectment of the petitioners be ordered.

(3.) Initially, Shri D.P. Singla, the Rent Controller, Nawanshahr vide order dated 11.2.2006 dismissed the application moved by the petitioners seeking leave to contest the ejectment petition. The petitioner-tenant filed revision petition before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2008 setting aside the aforesaid order dated 11.2.2006 of the Rent Controller and the petitioners were granted leave to contest. Thereafter, the petitioners filed written statement stating that the respondent was not an NRI and had not returned to India from Australia. It was further stated that the ownership of the respondent along with his brother over the demised premises was matter of record. However, it was denied that the same had fallen to the share of the respondent along with his brother. However, the petitioners admitted themselves to be the tenants under the respondent. It was also stated that the property was situated in Dana Mandi which was not suitable for any business except the business of wheat and paddy. It was also alleged that the family of the respondent was also not residing with him in Nawanshahr and he had left Nawanshahr for the last about 4-5 years ago with his family and the instant petition filed was to take the undue advantage of the provisions of the Act. It was also stated that the respondent had got many other properties situated within the municipal limits of Nawanshahr. Thus, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.