BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. ZENOBIA BHANOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision No. 1260 of 1989 (Bhupinder Singh versus Smt. Zenobia Bhanot) was finally disposed of on November, 6, 1989 (1989 HRR 45). The revision petition was allowed and the order of ejectment passed was set aside. It may further be mentioned that there was another Civil Revision Petition No. 1386 of 1989 which was also disposed of by the same order allowing ejectment of Dr. (Mrs.) Sukhjit Kaur Gill. The ejectment of Dr. Gill was ordered under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called of the Act') as applicable to Chandigarh. The decision was given on the basis of earlier decision of this Court in Sohan Lal v. Col. Prem Singh Grewal and another, 1989 Haryana Rent Reporter 241, holding that under Section 13-A of the Act, the landlord could get ejectment of one of the tenants and not all.

(2.) THERE were two other tenants of Smt. Zenobia Bhanot, namely, Surinder Sharma and P.K. Versudeva against whom Smt. Bhanot had also filed application under Section 13-A of the Act. In view of the decision in Bhupinder Singh's case those ejectment applications were thus dismissed. Smt. Zenobia Bhanot has filed revision petitions against those orders which stand admitted to larger Bench as ordered by S.S. Sodhi, J. In Civil Revision No. 3025 of 1990, Sodhi, J. has observed in the order of admission that the decision in Sohan Lal Patiala v. Col. Prem Singh Grewal and another, 1989(2) PLR 139 : 1989(1) RCR 650, deserves to be reconsidered. Now the landlord Smt. Zenobia Bhanot has filed an application for review of order dated November 6, 1989 passed in Bhupinder Singh's case (1990 HRR 45).

(3.) SMT . Surjit Kaur Gill has challenged the order in the Supreme Court. It is stated that SLP was dismissed. If the landlord-Smt. Zenobia Bhanot was not satisfied with the decision in Bhupinder Singh's case, she could also approach the Supreme Court. Finding no merit in this review petition the same is dismissed.