LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-139

PARSHOTAM BHANOT Vs. HARDEEP SINGH

Decided On January 23, 2012
Parshotam Bhanot Appellant
V/S
HARDEEP SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of four revision petitions bearing CR-1816-2009 titled as 'Parshotam Bhanot v. Hardeep Singh', CR-1817- 2009 titled as 'Rajiv Kumar v. Hardeep Singh', CR-1818-2009 titled as 'Gurdev Singh v. Gurdeep Singh' and CR-1819-2009 titled as 'Sukhwinder Singh v. Gurdeep Singh'.

(2.) Out of 4 eviction petitions, two have been filed by Hardeep Singh and two by his brother Gurdeep Singh, who both are NRIs. All the eviction petitions have been filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in which the tenants have filed applications under Section 18-A(4) of the Act for seeking leave to defend, which have been declined.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has argued that one Faqir Singh was the owner of the demised premises. He had left behind 3 sons, 3 daughters and a widow. On the basis of the alleged oral family settlement, the demised premises has been given to the present respondents so that they could be useful in filing a petition under Section 13-B of the Act to seek eviction of the petitioners in summary proceedings. He has primarily made two submissions; firstly, that the oral family settlement cannot be believed in the absence of there being its reflection in the record of rights and secondly, by way of an application bearing CM-17059-CII-2010, the petitioner(s) have sought permission to place on record subsequent events allegedly occurred during the pendency of the eviction proceedings regarding huge property purchased by the landlord Gurdeep Singh in the name of his mother Surjit Kaur by registered conveyance deed dated 12.12.2008 and that they do not have any bona fide necessity because of having a vacant 7 Marlas property in the same vicinity. It is also averred that in the same area where the demised premises is situated, i. e. Maksudan, Hardeep Singh has become the owner of land measuring 40' x 80' through his other mother Smt. Parsin Kaur. It is alleged that the said fact has been actively concealed by the landlords in the eviction petition and a mis-statement has been made in para No. 13 thereof. In this regard, he has referred to an affidavit dated 06.01.2010 and the statement of Surjit Kaur which are attached as Annexures P-6 and P-7 with the aforesaid application. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has also argued that respondents have not filed any reply to the aforesaid application, therefore, all the facts pleaded therein are deemed to have been admitted.