STIC TRAVELS Vs. VIRANMOOL SINGH TOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents-landlords filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises being Non Resident Indians, who required the demised premises for their own personal use and occupation.

(2.) It has been specifically stated in the eviction petition that the respondents are Indians by birth and fall within the definition of Non Resident Indian as contained under Section 2(dd) of the Act and have decided to come back to India to reside and settle in Chandigarh and start a Joint Venture in the demised premises. It has also been submitted by them specifically that they are the owners of the building in question for more then five years and do not occupy any other commercial premises in the urban area of Chandigarh, nor they have vacated any such premises after commencement of the Act.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioners filed an application for leave to defend under Section 18-A(4) of the Act submitting that the eviction petition was not maintainable as the respondents were not the owners of the premises in question; further submitting that the respondents were well settled in the foreign country and they have not placed on record any document to show entering into a Joint Venture for running of hospital in the demised premises as alleged.