MALKIAT SINGH Vs. SATISH NAGPAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 28.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby his application for leave to contest has been declined and consequently eviction order has been passed against him.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that Satish Nagpaul had filed petition under Section 13-B of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner (tenant) from the premises consisting of one room on 2nd floor of house no.120, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh claiming himself to be a Non Resident Indian. As per averments it was stated that father of the Satish Nagpaul was the owner of the premises and after his death, respondent(landlord) Satish Nagpaul along with his brother Joginder Nagpaul had inherited the house in equal shares and they had become owners and landlords of the demised premises. It was stated in the petition that the premises was required by him as he immediately wants to shift back to India and occupy first and second floor of the premises and live peacefully in the premises.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioner(tenant) filed an application for leave to defend on the ground that the need is not bona fide and further it was stated that the petitioner(tenant) is not a tenant under Satish Nagpaul and he is in fact a tenant under Dr. J.P. Nagpaul.