HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. SUKHJINDER SINGH AULAK @ BILLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR No. 4091 of 2006 titled as Harbhajan Singh v. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another' and CR No. 4201 of 2006 titled as 'Surinder Kumar and another v. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another' as in both the cases the eviction petitions filed by the same landlords under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] have been allowed and the applications filed by the tenants under Section 18-A(4) of the Act have been declined and they have been ordered to vacate the demised premises. The only difference in both the cases is that in CR No. 4091 of 2006, the tenant Harbhajan Singh is in occupation of shop No. 1, 1st Floor, Block-B, Dilkusha Market, Civil Lines, Jalandhar, whereas in CR No. 4201 of 2006, the tenants Surinder Kumar and another are in possession of shop No. 1, Ground Floor, Block-B, Dilkusha Market, Civil Lines, Jalandhar. Thus, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CR No. 4091 of 2006 titled as 'Harbhajan Singh v. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another'.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the landlords is that they had purchased the demised premises along with Bhagat Singh, Tripta Rani and Balwant Kaur in the year 1973. The demised premises fell to their share in an oral family settlement arrived at in November, 2005 regarding which a memorandum was also executed between the parties on 05.01.2006. They sought eviction of the tenants on the ground that they are owners of the demised premises from the last five years as the demised premises was purchased in the year 1973 and is required by them for their own use and occupation as they wanted to start consultancy business in both the shops situated on Ground Floor and First Floor. After service, the tenant put in appearance and filed an application under Section 18-A(4) of the Act in which it was alleged that the demised premises is jointly owned by Bhagat Singh, Tripta Rani, Sukhjinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Balwant Kaur to the extent of 1/5th share each. Bhagat Singh and Tripta Rani, parents of the landlords, had already filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act against Shiv Darshan Singh in respect of part of property No. 7/B, Model Town Market, Jalandhar in which the tenant has been granted leave to defend. The parents of the landlords have also filed another eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act against M/s Raj Hans Tailor and others in respect of part of property N.7/B, Model Town Market, Jalandhar in which leave to defend was not granted on 26.04.2005 against which the said tenant had filed appeal and his dispossession has been stayed. It was further alleged that the parents of the landlords have filed other eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act against Harinder Singh Bedi in respect of part of property No. 7/B, Model Town Market, Jalandhar which is pending before the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar and that one of the landlords, namely, Sukhjinder Singh Aulak, had filed an affidavit that he is a co-sharer in the property No. 7/B, Model Town Market, Jalandhar and had no objection to the eviction petition having been filed by his father and mother against all the tenants in building No. 7/B, Model Town Market, Jalandhar. It was also alleged that the said affidavit was filed on 09.03.2005, whereas the family settlement was arrived at in November, 2005, a document in this regard was prepared on 05.01.2006, Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Rajiv Kumar on 07.01.2006 and the present eviction petition was filed on 21.01.2006. It was alleged that the family settlement was only a camouflage because parents of the landlords had already filed eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act in respect of the property situated in Model Town Market, Jalandhar.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the impugned orders, the present revision petitions have been filed in which operation of the impugned orders was stayed on 03.08.2006. Thereafter the matter was adjourned sine die because it was alleged that the landlords could have chosen one of the premises in the same building and could not have filed eviction petition in respect of two premises in the same building. However, the matter was revived because it is now well settled that the building would not mean a part of the building but the entire building.